Eric,
I am not sure why Michaelson and Morely expected to find any
drift in a “spatial” direction.. all the relativistic evidence shows that
acceleration only results in a temporal displacement..that is to say that time
and ether share the same axis at 90 degrees to all 3 spatial axis and have a
Pythagorean relationship with space..they should have been testing for time
dilation not spatial drift.. This also results in syntax error when it is
encountered because time and space are exchanging metrics from our 3d
perspective trapped within a single inertial frame. Limiting ether to a spatial
axis is naïve and disagrees with how we see a gravity well always pointing
“down” regardless of which side of a planet you stand on..it again suggests an
orientation of a flow 90 degrees to all 3 spatial directions. The Wave
Structure of Matter suggests to me a canoe stuck in a waterfall where only
certain vacuum wavelengths have the correct characteristics to get stuck in the
waterfall [our physical 3d plane] and get swept along in our spatial plane
while other “virtual particles” keep migrating across our plane between future
and past, pushing their way through gas atoms to whom they impart HUP [jitter]
energy to that accounts for ZPE or the inability of some gases to freeze at 0
kelvin… the nonphysical axis only becoming momentarily solid as it passes
through the waterfall we call the Present in the form of virtual particles.
John says he wants to engineer the ether but the isotropy is very difficult to
break..Just segregating it a little bit with Casimir geometry or other quantum
application of London forces seems to be the best science has managed so far..
I think his suggestion of shapes and patterns to form “circuits” should be
considered “effect” not “cause” by a very wide margin. I do like his idea of
engineering the ether but totally disagree with this suggested implementation.
Hopefully he has other alternative suggestions.
Fran
From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
It seems to me that the idea of an ether is a useful one, albeit not in the
form people were anticipating early last century. I believe they expected to
find experimental evidence of a general movement in a specific direction if an
ether existed. I see no reason to think that an either needs to be like a wind
blowing through our part of the cosmos at a speed relative to ours. Assuming
for a moment that it exists in a useful sense, it could be stationary in
relation to spacetime (i.e., any possible frame of reference allowed by
relativity).
I like the concept of an ether because it provides something for waves to
propagate through. It seems to me that we've already adopted something vaguely
along these lines in a practical sense by positing zero point energy; i.e., the
void is not really a void.
Eric
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:30 AM, David Roberson
<dlrober...@aol.com<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote:
I see that you two believe in some form of ether that modifies the space around
us. That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult time
accepting the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a reference.
