On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 08:03:11 -0000,
(Bilge) wrote:

:

A vortex sponge as illustrated herein has some properties associated
with solids. It has restoring forces (due to gyroscopic spin
stabilization and ring coupling) and a lattice structure. It however
lacks others. Namely any meaningful shear resistance or viscosity.
Vortex coupled Superfluidity shared these same characteristics.

No shear viscosity, no vortex. The vortices in a superfluid are due
to the normal component of the superfluid.

Note that I did NOT say ZERO shear resistance or viscosity, I said
meaningful... There was a deliberate distinction!

Paul Stowe

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 08:40:53 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


wrote in message ...
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:19:59 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:

[Snip...]


Sorry, I wasn't clear. Lorentz didn't use *any* aether in that paper.
(That counts not using a solid aether.) Lorentz used the EM equations
of an electron. Maxwell used a (super)fluid aether.

Then you don't agree with the analysis of Paul Stowe, or can "(super)fluid"
be the same as "pseudo solid"?

Try "superfluous"

Main Entry: su·per·flu·ous
Pronunciation: su-'p&r-flü-&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin superfluus, literally,
running over, from superfluere to overflow, from super- + fluere
to flow -- more at FLUID
Date: 15th century
1 a : exceeding what is sufficient or necessary : EXTRA
b : not needed : UNNECESSARY
2 obsolete : marked by wastefulness : EXTRAVAGANT

- su·per·flu·ous·ly adverb
- su·per·flu·ous·ness noun

Very well, do meaningful physics without any equations of either
fluid mechanics and vortex dynamics...

Very well, prove that meaningful physics can be done that
cannot be done without a fluid or solid or 'solid' or "solid" or
superfluid or (super)fluid or "(super)fluid" or (pseudo)solid
or pseudofluid or pseudo solid ether...

Let's take a trip down logic lane...

Fact: - the equations governing classical fluid dynamics, also called
Continuum Mechanics, which define large scale fluidic
processes also define large scale EM processes.

Logic branch,

1. They are the same because they represent the same physical
processes.

2. It's just shear coincidence, the apparent similarity is just an
illusion.

Pick one (or add your own)...

Fact: - "The theory used to describe the perfect fluid in the general
theory of relativity is a direct extension of that of
classical hydrodynamics and its reformulation in the special
theory. The fluid is assumed to be characterized by the
physical properties of pessure and mass density. The energy
density is defined by the symmetric tensor.... " (page
2-50, "Handbook of Physics", Condon & Odishaw, McGraw-Hill)

1. The similarity is because they represent the same physical
processes.

2. It's just shear coincidence, the apparent similarity is just an
illusion.

Pick one (or add your own)...

Now be sure to defend your choices against Ockham's Razor...

If you can succeed in accomplishing this, I'll publicly agree that
it is superfluous.

It IS superfluous? Freudian slip Dirk old boy?

If you can succeed in accomplishing this, the world will be at your
feet.

If you cannot, you admit that you're wrong. (I'll not hold my breath)

And then you can also start breathing again.

Me-thinks you have a reading comprehension problem...

Paul Stowe

wrote in message ...
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 18:44:37 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


wrote in message ...

[snip]


If you can succeed in accomplishing this, I'll publicly agree that
it is superfluous.

It IS superfluous? Freudian slip Dirk old boy?

Are you talking to yourself or aren't you?

[snip]

Coping out, eh Dirk... Thought you would...

I don't talk to people who talk to themselves :-)

Dirk Vdm

(followup set to relativity group)

Paul Stowe wrote:

Fact: - "The theory used to describe the perfect fluid in the general
theory of relativity is a direct extension of that of
classical hydrodynamics and its reformulation in the special
theory. The fluid is assumed to be characterized by the
physical properties of pessure and mass density. The energy
density is defined by the symmetric tensor.... " (page
2-50, "Handbook of Physics", Condon & Odishaw, McGraw-Hill)

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...rk.ucdavis.edu

Seven years later, Paul Stowe still misrepresents the same quote.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...rk.ucdavis.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...rk.ucdavis.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...rk.ucdavis.edu

Seven years later, Paul Stowe's models are still a failure.


---Tim Shuba---

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 21:22:36 -0500, shuba
wrote:

Paul Stowe wrote:

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 15:59:34 -0500, shuba
wrote:

Paul Stowe wrote:

Fact: - "The theory used to describe the perfect fluid in the general
theory of relativity is a direct extension of that of
classical hydrodynamics and its reformulation in the special
theory. The fluid is assumed to be characterized by the
physical properties of pessure and mass density. The energy
density is defined by the symmetric tensor.... " (page
2-50, "Handbook of Physics", Condon & Odishaw, McGraw-Hill)

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...rk.ucdavis.edu

[..]

Is that a correct assessment?

The assessment is the link is correct. ...

Yup, and since it is a standard published reference anyone can check
to see it I've misquoted anything (I didn't)

Paul Stowe profoundly misunderstood the reference he gave.

Nope. If I have ANY equation that says,

x + y = z

and further, I say, g = x + y,

Then, x + y EQUALS z and g = z!

If z is fundamentally a fluid dynamical process, then by god x & y
(g) ARE A RESULT of that process! If not, then the equation is
fundamentally false! Are you claiming

G(i,j) = 8piT(i,j)

is false? If not, then how can G(i,j) = 8piT(i,j) and that S/E
tensor be "a direct extension of that of classical hydrodynamics and
its reformulation in the special theory" and G(i,j) NOT be a result?

And he still does, as is evidenced by Stowe's repeated failures to show
that Maxwell's or LeSage's mechanical models lead to any of modern physics.

In the context of this sub thread that is not even at issue here...

Now crawl back into the wood work cockroach.

Paul Stowe

Paul Stowe wrote:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...rk.ucdavis.edu

Paul Stowe profoundly misunderstood the reference he gave.

Nope.

I'll take the assessment of a proven expert in general relativity over
a failure and belligerent crank like Paul Stowe.


---Tim Shuba---

Dan Bloomquist wrote in message ...
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:


I thought you meant something else. But in this case, I would say
don't try to push an analogy too far. Unless you want to start doing
fluid mechanics with the equations of gravity. The mathematics used
are geometrical, and have meaning and justification beyond any
particular physical application.

Here, I found this an interesting paper.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0011064

I think it a mistake to get to attached to interpretations. As if
interpretations actually describe the nature of reality. GR describes
gravity in geometric terms but that doesn't mean it says gravity is a
geometric phenomena. It is only a model that fits observations.

I see so much 'there is an eather', 'there isn't an eather' as if the
op's belief would sway nature into some reality. We have no observation
that says space can or can't store energy, so what is the use of this
fixation?

That we have a model and can't say we know what's "really" happening
has pretty much been the state of the art in the philosophy of science
for more than a hundred years. I've come to think that the problem
most cranks, at least around here, have is not special knowledge or
some lack of understanding, it's philosophical: "I know something
about how the universe REALLY works, and [insert theory here] ain't
it." Some have even said that Einstein's math works and makes all the
right predictions, but the theory is wrong because that's not how
nature REALLY works. And sure, there's the kooks that post trivially
flawed "contradictions" in relativity, usually from a
half-Einsteinian, half-Newtonian analysis. It's tempting to think the
problem can be explained and they'll mend their kooky ways, but when
they say (and they've said) they have no intention of wasting their
time studying the theory because it's wrong, you know it's still the
philosophical issue. They just don't realize that, in a scientific
sense, to say "relativity is wrong" is an experimental issue and can't
be reduced to logic or personal preference or revealed Truth.

It goes all around. There's also the people that will say spacetime
is REALLY curved, not that we just have a theory that so far
successfully models it with curvature. They tend not to be noticed so
much because they're comfortable with the party line. But they're
making the same mistake.

But at least in that aether thing, from the likes of Kolker and
Wormley we've been seeing a lot of statements like

There is no evidence for the existence of aether. All effects can be
explained or predicted without invoking aether.

Not that there is no aether, but there's no need to invoke one, the
aether properties play no role in the theory.

But when arguing with someone making a definite statement like "There
IS an aether" or "Relativity is wrong!", no matter how you qualify
your statements they'll easily mistake you for taking the opposite
view, "There is NO aether" or "Relativity is The Truth", rather than a
third position that hadn't occured to them. Relativity has been
validated, not verified.

Everyone knows there's been so many scientific theories, like caloric
or Descarte's swirling aethers that push the planets in their orbits
like a whirlpool. I thought just be glancing at the history of
science we'd have grown out of that mode of thinking. People have
thought they knew The Truth before, their ideas seem quaint now. It's
pretty optimistic to think that what you call The Truth today won't
seem quaint in a few hundred years.

Hi Greg ,
You wrote :
" It's pretty optimistic to think that what you call
' The Truth ' today won't seem quaint in
a few hundred years . "


No doubt . I fully agree .

....
Hey Greg , I have a multiple choice question for you .

Why do you think we fail to perfectly predict the weather ?

A - Because the weather is _ Intrinsically _ random .
( i.e. Knowledge is irrelevant . )

B - Because we're ignorant of the weather .

c - I'm an empiricist , I don't care .

In article ,
Jeff Relf wrote:
Hi Greg ,
You wrote :
" It's pretty optimistic to think that what you call
' The Truth ' today won't seem quaint in
a few hundred years . "


No doubt . I fully agree .

...
Hey Greg , I have a multiple choice question for you .

Why do you think we fail to perfectly predict the weather ?

A - Because the weather is _ Intrinsically _ random .
( i.e. Knowledge is irrelevant . )

B - Because we're ignorant of the weather .

c - I'm an empiricist , I don't care .


Sort of B. That new discoveries about climate and meteorology are still
being published is enough proof that we don't know everything about the
weather. But besides that is the limited amount of data that can be
gathered and plugged into the models.

--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible

Hi Gregory L. Hansen ,
You say :
" That new discoveries about climate and meteorology
are still being published is enough proof that
we don't know everything about the weather .
But besides that is the limited amount of data that
can be gathered and plugged into the models . "


And of course ,
You think the same is true of the quantum world ... Right ?

Because if nature were intrinsically random
Then let's all pack our bags and go home ...
There's nothing more to learn .