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 ½
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

it seems that
a unification of the four fundamental forces in nature may be expected
from consideration of the physics of the aether.

*************

Maybe the unification of the 4 forces is neither desirable or possible.
Why not try to unify the four integers 1,2,3,and 4? Why can't the 4
forces act separately?

wrote in message
oups.com...
it seems that
a unification of the four fundamental forces in nature may be expected
from consideration of the physics of the aether.


Implicit in any aether postulate is the notion of some
extremely tenuous scale of spatial structure (along
with its quantum fluctuations - ZPF) that exhibits
a behaviour such that all other standard model particles
should be able to explained as dynamic configurations
of this primal (hypothetical) "state of matter".


*************

Maybe the unification of the 4 forces is neither desirable or possible.

Albert (the bus driver) expended time on this issue.
He obviously thought such unification was the next
logical step in the advancement of the "scientific program".


Why not try to unify the four integers 1,2,3,and 4?

This is the mathematicans approach, however the aether
postulate requires there be some physics. Minkowski
essentially appears to have unified the integral concept
of dimension in precisely this manner.


Why can't the 4
forces act separately?

Four horses may either run freely or be harnessed
to a team. Perhaps applications are derived from
the latter which are significantly novel, useful and
advantageous?





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

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
k...
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 assumption is reasonable.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news97_4.html



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:


Here is a paper that also references the fine structure
constant, it may be of interest:

Gravity, 'Dark Matter' and the Fine Structure Constant
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, January 2004
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0401047
Apeiron Vol. 12. No.2, 144-177,
April 2005



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 ½
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.



Unification = integrity.





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

Thank you Pete,

My value for the much discussed finestructure-constant is
alpha = 2*pi*e^2 / h*c = 7.297349E-3

And let me say that I'm amazed of the simplicity of the whole concept,
which as presented here is but a first approximation. However, as I
believe, with very safe derivation of the aether equation from
fundamental definitions and constants.

Ole

"mountain man" skrev i en meddelelse
news
"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
k...
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 assumption is reasonable.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news97_4.html



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:


Here is a paper that also references the fine structure
constant, it may be of interest:

Gravity, 'Dark Matter' and the Fine Structure Constant
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, January 2004
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0401047
Apeiron Vol. 12. No.2, 144-177,
April 2005



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 ½
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.



Unification = integrity.





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

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
k...
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 ½
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

"Bill Hobba" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
k...
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 ½
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

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
k...
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.


If this is the case, what is the name that you'd give to the
phenomena that has been described in the first paragraph
by which every point in space is "saturated" with the radiant
energy from all astrophysical objects (in the cosmos)?

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
k...

"Bill Hobba" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
k...
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 ½
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

"mountain man" wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
k...
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.


If this is the case, what is the name that you'd give to the
phenomena that has been described in the first paragraph
by which every point in space is "saturated" with the radiant
energy from all astrophysical objects (in the cosmos)?

I call such silly semantics lacking in any coherency - and example of
'philology' that Lev Landau worked to eliminate from physics - although such
a rudimentary one anyone can see how silly it is - one does not have to be a
great physicist like Landau eg the CBMR can be screened out by a faraday
cage - so how does it 'saturate' what is inside it? The name I would give
the 'phenomena' that radiation radiates is tautology - not the aether. What
name would you give the phenomena 2+2 = 4 - is that the aether as well?

Bill