"robert j. kolker" wrote in message ...
Einsteinhoax wrote:

Evidence of the Existence of the Aether

It is the currently accepted "truth" that there is no experimental
evidence of the Aether. This seems surprising because, if the Aether made its
presence any more obvious, physicists would have teeth marks on their butts
from where the Aether had jumped up and bit them. A few examples:

There is nothing explained WITH Aether that cannot be explained WITHOUT
Aether.

Dennis: That's a statement of no importance. There is nothing
explained with the atmosphere that cannot be "explained" without the
atmosphere. Just invent bodiless wind and pressure fields -- and have
sound be a "wave" without an actual physical medium. The equations
stay the same.
Now, I know what you are thinking: Why would anyone be so naive as
to ignore all the obvious fluid characteristics of a region, and
simply redescribe all of its effects with bodiless fields?
And I agree.

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
om...
| "robert j. kolker" wrote in message
...
| Einsteinhoax wrote:
|
| Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
|
| It is the currently accepted "truth" that there is no
experimental
| evidence of the Aether. This seems surprising because, if the Aether
made its
| presence any more obvious, physicists would have teeth marks on their
butts
| from where the Aether had jumped up and bit them. A few examples:
|
| There is nothing explained WITH Aether that cannot be explained WITHOUT
| Aether.
|
| Dennis: That's a statement of no importance. There is nothing
| explained with the atmosphere that cannot be "explained" without the
| atmosphere.

Whilst that is fundamentally true, the difficulty is that the atmosphere is
part of the biosphere as well as explaining flight, and the explanations
lack any commonality without it.
This is the situation today in astronomy. The cepheids, the recurrent novae,
the flare stars and the eclipsing variables lack any commonality in their
explanations. Sure, you can have a special explanation for every type of
phenomena, but that doesn't mean the explanation is correct.


Just invent bodiless wind and pressure fields -- and have
| sound be a "wave" without an actual physical medium. The equations
| stay the same.
That is not enough. You need to explain biochemistry and aerodynamics as
well.

| Now, I know what you are thinking: Why would anyone be so naive as
| to ignore all the obvious fluid characteristics of a region,

It wasn't ignored. MMX was written to make use of it. Planes were invented
make use of atmostphere. MMX didn't work, planes do.

| and
| simply redescribe all of its effects with bodiless fields?

Because the electric, magnetic and gravitational fields are know to exist
and the aether is known not to exist, of course. Why would anyone be so
naive as to insist the speed of light is aether dependent when experiment
has shown otherwise? A naive Dennis McCarthy?


| And I agree.
Yes, you are naive.
Androcles

Dear Dennis McCarthy:

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
om...
"robert j. kolker" wrote in message
...
Einsteinhoax wrote:

Evidence of the Existence of the Aether

It is the currently accepted "truth" that there is no
experimental
evidence of the Aether. This seems surprising because, if the Aether
made its
presence any more obvious, physicists would have teeth marks on their
butts
from where the Aether had jumped up and bit them. A few examples:

There is nothing explained WITH Aether that cannot be explained WITHOUT
Aether.

Dennis: That's a statement of no importance. There is nothing
explained with the atmosphere that cannot be "explained" without the
atmosphere.

Please do so. Please include optical effects which identify the presence
of a medium.

Just invent bodiless wind and pressure fields -- and have
sound be a "wave" without an actual physical medium. The equations
stay the same.
Now, I know what you are thinking: Why would anyone be so naive as
to ignore all the obvious fluid characteristics of a region, and
simply redescribe all of its effects with bodiless fields?
And I agree.

So prove the evidence of an aether. Show us some anomalous effect that
aether is required to explain.

David A. Smith

Dennis McCarthy wrote:

"robert j. kolker" wrote in message


There is nothing explained WITH Aether that cannot be explained WITHOUT
Aether.

Dennis: That's a statement of no importance. There is nothing
explained with the atmosphere that cannot be "explained" without the
atmosphere. Just invent bodiless wind and pressure fields -- and have
sound be a "wave" without an actual physical medium. The equations
stay the same.
Now, I know what you are thinking: Why would anyone be so naive as
to ignore all the obvious fluid characteristics of a region, and
simply redescribe all of its effects with bodiless fields?
And I agree.

I'm waiting a demonstration of Brownian motion produced by
"etherons".

Tom Clarke

greywolf42 wrote:

"Tom Clarke" wrote in message

[With respect to Rado gravity theory analogy to fluid mechanics]

Tom, you were replying to Dennis, not Rado. Rado's theory -- per se --
was not under discussion.

I thought Dennis was one of Rado's chief advocates.
Proprietar of aethro-kinematics mailing list etc.

Even if this is true, it is irrelevant. Because Rado's theory - per se -
was not under discussion. Apparently, this is an attempt on your part at
guilt-by-association.

????
So far as I know Dennis thinks his theory is the Rado theory, or
at least a variation of it. If I recall, if you refer to Dennis McCarthy's
theory, Dennis will correct you and tell you it is the Rado theory.

You like to put this back in , so I'll leave it:

============================================
Bobby Kolker:
"There is nothing explained WITH Aether that cannot be explained WITHOUT
Aether."

Dennis:
"That's a statement of no importance. There is nothing explained with the
atmosphere that cannot be "explained" without the atmosphere. Just invent
bodiless wind and pressure fields -- and have sound be a "wave" without an
actual physical medium. The equations stay the same. Now, I know what you
are thinking: Why would anyone be so naive as to ignore all the obvious
fluid characteristics of a region, and simply redescribe all of its effects
with bodiless fields? And I agree.
============================================

So you are saying that Rado's gravity particles (etherons)
are virtual quanta?

We still aren't talking about Rado's theory.

So are you saying that in McCarthy's theory [which McCarthy says
is a variant of Rado's theory] etherons are virtual quanta?

And, no, I'm not claiming that 'aetherons' are 'virtual quanta.' Which is
why my statement required you to replace one with the other.

Then 'brownian motion' / zitterbewegung is not a prediction of
McCarthy (or Rado or whatever) ether particulate theory
of gravity?

Note that the 'brownian motion' / zitterbewegung is an effect. The
postulated theoretical cause is different. One is real and observable (and
has certain additional effects). The other is 'virtual' and theoretically
never observable (and has certain other effects).

Virtual quanta produce observable effects, namely Lamb shift,
Casimir effect.
.................

Do you attribute zero-point effects to etherons?

Non sequiteur. To what specific observed effects are you referring? (ZPE
is a quantum concept. Hence, some of these concepts may not carry over to
an aether theory.)

zitterbewegung, Lamb Shift, Casimir effect.
No particular effect in mind. What is your opinion about
might be an observable result of the existence of "aetherons",
or not if you are an "aetheronist". Its been a while since I
posted with you and I can't remember your exact position.

Quite simply, a form of 'brownian motion' is found. Are you therefore
changing your views in line with evidence, or simply changing your
argument?

Why are is 'brownian motion' in quotes in that statement - because
it is not exactly the same as Brownian motion.

I'll take that evasion as a 'simply changing your argument.'

I don't think that zitterbewegung is precisely analagous to
Brownian motion. Why is that changing my argument?

The effect of the jittering of a real mass due to the impact of real
particles *is* exactly brownian motion.

Real particles, sure. Are you saying that zitterbewegung is
the result of the impact of real particles?

Brownian motion -- by definition -- is the motion of
matter particles in a matter fluid, as the result of the impact of the
thermal motion of molecules. Since you asked for a 'type' of brownian
motion, I gave you an example.

Then apparently zitterbewegung does not meet the definition of
Brownian motion. Where is the matter fluid? The motion is
not thermal. There is a loose analogy - hence the scare quotes.

However, since the driving force is a
physical aetheron -- instead of a physical molecule -- I decided to put the
term 'brownian motion' in quotes because one usually doesn't find it
associated with the term zitterbewegung.

What is the temperature of the fluid of physical aetherons?

Aside from the difference between molecules and corpuscles being the
particles doing the impacting, the effect is the same.

Not exactly the same zitterbewegung gives a distribution of width
equal to the Compton wavelength of the particle. Brownian
motion results in a random walk with gaussian statistics.

Temperature is not an issue for one thing.

Why do you make this claim?

Because zitterbewegung does not depend on temperature.
For one thing, of what would it be temperature?

I was wondering after I posted this what the temperature of the
etherons would be.

That would depend upon their mass and average motion. Just like for any
other fluid. That is, if they form a maxwellian fluid (which I believe they
do).

So can you venture an estimate?

Since etherons interact with matter
(else how would they produce gravity) they could conduct
heat to or from matter if they behaved thermodynamically.

They could indeed. And apparently, they do. See "Deriving Newton's
Gravitational Law from a Le Sage Mechanism", section on energy deposition, p
189, "Pushing Gravity."

The version of the book I received was electronic and is now on
the hard drive of a different computer in a different location.
Can you give a brief description?
...........

BTW, I think you missed Tom's point. Which was that the fact that you
haven't (yet) seen a fundamentally observable manifestation, does not
not mean that it doesn't exist (especially when one does not know the
scale of the interaction).

Lots of things may exist that are beyond the ken of science, but
without observable evidence there is no reason for science to
speculate about them.

Non sequiteur. There is a major difference between something that is simply
not yet technically observable, and something that is theoretically not
observable at all.

Sure. But before the observation how do you know which is the case?

The former is within the ken of the scientific method.
The latter is not. Yet the priests of academia speculate endlessly about
'virtual' particles.

The don't just speculate they calculate and observe the consequences
of predictions based on those calculations. e.g Lamb shift, Casimir effect

The particle theory of the atmosphere was fought for
centuries by academic fossils on exactly your point. That because no
'jittering' was seen, the atmosphere could not be particulate.
Eventually the technology of the microscope improved to where it
could be seen. (It was fought for a few decades more on other bases.)

My point exactly.

Yes, it was. I see you missed the irony of your position.

Atomic theory of gases only succeeded because atoms exist.

Tom Clarke

"Vern" wrote in message
Tom Clarke wrote:

I was suggesting that observation of otherwise unexplainable
"Brownian motion" of particles could constitute a phenomena
that Rado's theory might predict but which no other theory
explains, thus would be evidence in favor of Rado's theory.

But as you point out Rado's theory predicts no such thing, so
that would not be the case.

I missed the bit about an ideal gas thas is not affected by
temperature. If I had noted that, I would probably have
skimmed all the faster. How do you have a gas without
a temperature? Some sort of quantum effect?

I didn't say an ideal gas is not affected by temperature.
I said Rado's
Aether in its homogeneous state is not affected by temperature.

You wrote:
"The Aether in Rado's model has the characteristics of an ideal
gas except that temperature has no affect on the Aethrons."

So does Rado's aether have the characteristics of ideal gas -
less temperature effect - or not?

Tom,
why even talk about something you have only a passing knowledge of?

Passing knowledge is all it rates. Rado's theory on even a passing
reading is not a viable physical theory.

You obviously have blown it off without consideration.

I gave it some consideration, noted insurmontable difficulties with
the theory, noted lack of quantitative prediction, and then blew it
off.

And saying that your
comment was to inquire whether Brownian motion might be a way to
distinguish between Rado's model and the accepted model smacks of
hypocrisy.

I would say that the proper word would be "sarcasm".

I would be greatly surprised if Rado's theory could predict something
that is not predicted or accounted for by GR and QM.
But if it did then Rado's theory would have to be given
consideration and not blown off.

But I wouldn't count on such a prediction existing.

You have had plenty of opportunity to inquire about Rado's
model in our group, but made it clear that it wasn't worth your time.

It isn't. It's not a good theory. The people on your group seem
to enjoy themselves discussing it, so it would not be my place to
try to disprove their favorite theory on a private mailing list.

You have been silent in this group for months, but all of a sudden when
Dennis made a post, you found the time to try to ridicule what he was
saying. Sheesh; something about Rado's model boils your blood, doesn't
it. Maybe on some level you know it makes sense.

Yes. I only looked back at this group after Dennis suddently posted
on humanities.philosophy.objectivism where I had mentioned
an exchange with Dennis in making a point about the utility of
Popper's falsification idea. So I decided to look at spr to see what
was up.
I see nothing has changed.

BTW, your comments to Greywolf42 are also offbase. I am the proprietor
of the Aethro-Kinematics (AK) group and the constituents are known as
Aethrons.

My mistake. Why the "a" in front of "aethrons"? Newsgroups cannot
display the ae combination letter whatever that is called.

But to try to enlighten you concerning the model, it deals
mainly with EM and gravity. Rado is reportedly working on a second book
known as Aethro-Dynamics, which addresses elementary particles.

It would be easier if Rado just blamed it all on god(s).

Nevertheless, in the AK model, the concept is that a sink vortex of
Aether is present in matter. As a donut vortex or torus shape results
from the sink vortex, such particles are able to combine to form the
atoms, molecules and the lattices of matter.

Yes I read all that. I found it to be unsupported by quantitative prediction.
The book only contained hand-waving claims that this theory reproduces
everything that other theories predict quantitatively with great precision.

Once matter is formed,
because of its molecular makeup, temperature affects it. Brownian
motion results from the interaction of matter and temperature. The AK
model is not inconsistent with Brownian motion because it involves
matter and not the homogeneous Aether.

You still don't seem to get the point of my sarcasm.
Standard Brownian motion is not the issue.
The issue is whether RK predicts quantiatively some new effect not
predicted or explainable by other theories.

Tom Clarke

"Tom Clarke" wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:

"Tom Clarke" wrote in message

[With respect to Rado gravity theory analogy to fluid mechanics]

Tom, you were replying to Dennis, not Rado. Rado's theory -- per
se --
was not under discussion.

I thought Dennis was one of Rado's chief advocates.
Proprietar of aethro-kinematics mailing list etc.

Even if this is true, it is irrelevant. Because Rado's theory - per
se - was not under discussion. Apparently, this is an attempt on
your part at guilt-by-association.

????
So far as I know Dennis thinks his theory is the Rado theory, or
at least a variation of it. If I recall, if you refer to Dennis
McCarthy's theory, Dennis will correct you and tell you it is the
Rado theory.

If true, I care not. Because it is still irrelevant. Why do you feel the
need to make statements about 'Rado's theory', instead of addressing the
quote under discussion?

You like to put this back in , so I'll leave it:

============================================
Bobby Kolker:
"There is nothing explained WITH Aether that cannot be explained WITHOUT
Aether."

Dennis:
"That's a statement of no importance. There is nothing explained with
the atmosphere that cannot be "explained" without the atmosphere. Just
invent bodiless wind and pressure fields -- and have sound be a "wave"
without an actual physical medium. The equations stay the same.
Now, I know what you are thinking: Why would anyone be so naive
as to ignore all the obvious fluid characteristics of a region, and
simply redescribe all of its effects with bodiless fields? And I agree.
============================================

Well, I 'like' it, because it is the quote that we are discussing.

So you are saying that Rado's gravity particles (etherons)
are virtual quanta?

We still aren't talking about Rado's theory.

So are you saying that in McCarthy's theory [which McCarthy says
is a variant of Rado's theory] etherons are virtual quanta?

You'll have to ask McCarthy about McCarthy's theory. And you'll have to ask
Rado about Rado's theory.

And, no, I'm not claiming that 'aetherons' are 'virtual quanta.' Which
is why my statement required you to replace one with the other.

Then 'brownian motion' / zitterbewegung is not a prediction of
McCarthy (or Rado or whatever) ether particulate theory
of gravity?

You are trying too hard to divert the discussion. All particulate aether
theories will unavoidably contain a jittering of small particles of matter.
Call it brownian motion if you like. Call it zitterbewegung if you like
(that's about what it means, I believe). But they won't jitter because of
'virtual particles'. They will jitter because of impact with aether
corpuscles.

Note that the 'brownian motion' / zitterbewegung is an effect. The
postulated theoretical cause is different. One is real and observable
(and has certain additional effects). The other is 'virtual' and
theoretically never observable (and has certain other effects).

Virtual quanta produce observable effects, namely Lamb shift,
Casimir effect.

But 'virtual quanta' are not themselves theoretically observable. Hence,
they are unscientific -- by definition.

Particulate aether theories also describe the Casimir effect, the Lamb
shift, and the Pioneer effect.

(Neither list is presumed complete.)

Plus, there are other possible theories:
http://www.aias.us/Comments/comments06052004.html

................

Do you attribute zero-point effects to etherons?

Non sequiteur. To what specific observed effects are you referring?
(ZPE is a quantum concept. Hence, some of these concepts may
not carry over to an aether theory.)

zitterbewegung, Lamb Shift, Casimir effect.

These three effects *are* required by particulate aether models.

No particular effect in mind. What is your opinion about
might be an observable result of the existence of "aetherons",
or not if you are an "aetheronist". Its been a while since I
posted with you and I can't remember your exact position.

Who cares about my personal philosophy or theoretical preferences? The
scientific method requires analysis of the arguments and evidence provided.
(If you really care, feel free to google away.)

Quite simply, a form of 'brownian motion' is found. Are you
therefore changing your views in line with evidence, or simply
changing your argument?

Why are is 'brownian motion' in quotes in that statement - because
it is not exactly the same as Brownian motion.

I'll take that evasion as a 'simply changing your argument.'

I don't think that zitterbewegung is precisely analagous to
Brownian motion.

Why not? Please identify the specific difference in the effect(s).

Why is that changing my argument?

Because you didn't reply to the question, but diverted into an irrelevancy
about the appearance of quotation marks.

The effect of the jittering of a real mass due to the impact of real
particles *is* exactly brownian motion.

Real particles, sure. Are you saying that zitterbewegung is
the result of the impact of real particles?

Yes. According to particulate aether theories.

Brownian motion -- by definition -- is the motion of
matter particles in a matter fluid, as the result of the impact of the
thermal motion of molecules. Since you asked for a 'type' of brownian
motion, I gave you an example.

Then apparently zitterbewegung does not meet the definition of
Brownian motion. Where is the matter fluid? The motion is
not thermal.

A pretty pathetic quibble, wouldn't you say?

There is a loose analogy - hence the scare quotes.

I don't use analogies.

However, since the driving force is a
physical aetheron -- instead of a physical molecule -- I decided to put
the term 'brownian motion' in quotes because one usually doesn't find
it associated with the term zitterbewegung.

What is the temperature of the fluid of physical aetherons?

That depends on the local fluid conditions. Just like with any other
brownian motion.

Aside from the difference between molecules and corpuscles being the
particles doing the impacting, the effect is the same.

Not exactly the same zitterbewegung gives a distribution of width
equal to the Compton wavelength of the particle.

And the distribution shape is?

Brownian motion results in a random walk with gaussian statistics.

And the shape of the distribution is?

Temperature is not an issue for one thing.

Why do you make this claim?

Because zitterbewegung does not depend on temperature.
For one thing, of what would it be temperature?

Your observational evidence is where?

I was wondering after I posted this what the temperature of the
etherons would be.

That would depend upon their mass and average motion. Just like for any
other fluid. That is, if they form a maxwellian fluid (which I believe
they do).

So can you venture an estimate?

Yes. But I won't bother in this thread.

Since etherons interact with matter
(else how would they produce gravity) they could conduct
heat to or from matter if they behaved thermodynamically.

They could indeed. And apparently, they do. See "Deriving Newton's
Gravitational Law from a Le Sage Mechanism", section on energy
deposition, p 189, "Pushing Gravity."

The version of the book I received was electronic and is now on
the hard drive of a different computer in a different location.
Can you give a brief description?

All the gas giants in the Solar system give off 'excess' heat. Using
Jupiter as a reference, and the mathematical relationship between excess
heat that is required by a Le Sagian gravitational mechanism, we were able
to calculate the the 'excess' heats for the other planets.

BTW, I think you missed Tom's point. Which was that the fact that
you haven't (yet) seen a fundamentally observable manifestation,
does not mean that it doesn't exist (especially when one does not
know the scale of the interaction).

Lots of things may exist that are beyond the ken of science, but
without observable evidence there is no reason for science to
speculate about them.

Non sequiteur. There is a major difference between something that is
simply not yet technically observable, and something that is
theoretically not observable at all.

Sure. But before the observation how do you know which is the case?

1) Because the theory claims that 'virtual' particles are not observable at
all. While the physical theory claims that the real particles are
observable.

2) 'Virtual' particles should be observable if they exist at all. But none
are ever observed -- which disproves the theory (which is why they are
considered theoretically unobservable.)

The former is within the ken of the scientific method.
The latter is not. Yet the priests of academia speculate endlessly
about 'virtual' particles.

The don't just speculate they calculate and observe the consequences
of predictions based on those calculations. e.g Lamb shift, Casimir
effect

Actually, those are retrodictions. And it *is* nice that they can get some
good numbers. However, it is still not science. The Ptolemaics could do as
well.

The particle theory of the atmosphere was fought for
centuries by academic fossils on exactly your point. That because
no 'jittering' was seen, the atmosphere could not be particulate.
Eventually the technology of the microscope improved to where it
could be seen. (It was fought for a few decades more on other
bases.)

My point exactly.

Yes, it was. I see you missed the irony of your position.

Atomic theory of gases only succeeded because atoms exist.

Yes. And they existed despite the vitriolic attempts of Kantian/positivist
deadweights to quash the (correct) theory. You seem to champion the same
deadweight approach. Can you learn from history?

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

Tom Clarke wrote:

"Vern" wrote in message


Tom Clarke wrote:


(unrelated snip)


I missed the bit about an ideal gas thas is not affected by
temperature. If I had noted that, I would probably have
skimmed all the faster. How do you have a gas without
a temperature? Some sort of quantum effect?





I didn't say an ideal gas is not affected by temperature.
I said Rado's
Aether in its homogeneous state is not affected by temperature.



You wrote:
"The Aether in Rado's model has the characteristics of an ideal
gas except that temperature has no affect on the Aethrons."


Tom, are you sure you know how to read?

So does Rado's aether have the characteristics of ideal gas -
less temperature effect - or not?


Again; in its homogeneous state, the Aether of Aethro-Kinematics is not
affected by temperature.

(snipped unrelated nonsense)

You have been silent in this group for months, but all of a sudden when
Dennis made a post, you found the time to try to ridicule what he was
saying. Sheesh; something about Rado's model boils your blood, doesn't
it. Maybe on some level you know it makes sense.



Yes. I only looked back at this group after Dennis suddently posted
on humanities.philosophy.objectivism where I had mentioned
an exchange with Dennis in making a point about the utility of
Popper's falsification idea. So I decided to look at spr to see what
was up.
I see nothing has changed.


I see you also have not changed.

BTW, your comments to Greywolf42 are also offbase. I am the proprietor
of the Aethro-Kinematics (AK) group and the constituents are known as
Aethrons.



My mistake. Why the "a" in front of "aethrons"? Newsgroups cannot
display the ae combination letter whatever that is called.


Rado chose the classical wording as his model starts where he believed
modern physics went wrong.

But to try to enlighten you concerning the model, it deals
mainly with EM and gravity. Rado is reportedly working on a second book
known as Aethro-Dynamics, which addresses elementary particles.



It would be easier if Rado just blamed it all on god(s).


Nice flame, I guess.

Nevertheless, in the AK model, the concept is that a sink vortex of
Aether is present in matter. As a donut vortex or torus shape results
from the sink vortex, such particles are able to combine to form the
atoms, molecules and the lattices of matter.



Yes I read all that. I found it to be unsupported by quantitative prediction.
The book only contained hand-waving claims that this theory reproduces
everything that other theories predict quantitatively with great precision.


Deriving Maxwell's equations, Kepler's laws and the Universal Law of
Gravitation from the characteristics of an Aether medium is hardly
handwaving. Maybe you didn't get that far in the book.

Once matter is formed,
because of its molecular makeup, temperature affects it. Brownian
motion results from the interaction of matter and temperature. The AK
model is not inconsistent with Brownian motion because it involves
matter and not the homogeneous Aether.



You still don't seem to get the point of my sarcasm.
Standard Brownian motion is not the issue.
The issue is whether RK predicts quantiatively some new effect not
predicted or explainable by other theories.


As Greywolf42 has told you, all particulate aether theories have
different predictions than standard theories. One of the interesting
ones that Rado identified is that GR is based on Galilean relativity
which means that a particle accelerated to near the speed of light and
then released will continue at the velocity it last achieved. In the AK
(not RK) model, that particle would slow down due to Aether resistance.

After reviewing your comment about Brownian motion again, it's clear to
me that you believed that somehow modern theories predict Brownian
motion but the AK model does not. Otherwise, there would have been no
reason for you to say you were still waiting for a demonstration of
Brownian motion produced by "etherons [(sic)]." Why don't you just
admit your comment was off base and we'll let it go at that.

Vern

Vern wrote in message news:
Tom Clarke wrote:

Nevertheless, in the AK model, the concept is that a sink vortex of
Aether is present in matter. ......

Yes I read all that. I found it to be unsupported by quantitative
prediction.
The book only contained hand-waving claims that this theory reproduces
everything that other theories predict quantitatively with great precision.

Deriving Maxwell's equations, Kepler's laws and the Universal Law of
Gravitation from the characteristics of an Aether medium is hardly
handwaving. Maybe you didn't get that far in the book.

It was handwaving, reasoning by analogy. It was not rigorous at all.
..............
You still don't seem to get the point of my sarcasm.
Standard Brownian motion is not the issue.
The issue is whether RK predicts quantiatively some new effect not
predicted or explainable by other theories.

As Greywolf42 has told you, all particulate aether theories have
different predictions than standard theories.

And I'm waiting for an observation of one of these differences.
I mentioned one possible difference - a quasi, sort-of, analog
to "Brownian motion" that is not predicted by a "standard theory".

One of the interesting
ones that Rado identified is that GR is based on Galilean relativity
which means that a particle accelerated to near the speed of light and
then released will continue at the velocity it last achieved.

A nit pick. Maybe not such a nit. GR is based on special relativity.

In the AK
(not RK) model, that particle would slow down due to Aether resistance.

Has this been observed?

After reviewing your comment about Brownian motion again, it's clear to
me that you believed that somehow modern theories predict Brownian
motion but the AK model does not.

I know AK claims to reproduce Maxwell etc so for that reason it would
also reproduce classical ordinary as-dealt-with-by-standard-theories
Brownian motion as well.

Otherwise, there would have been no
reason for you to say you were still waiting for a demonstration of
Brownian motion produced by "etherons [(sic)]." Why don't you just
admit your comment was off base and we'll let it go at that.

It is clear from this reading of my comments that you are the one
who has difficulty reading.

[In the post above I have tried to add lots of redundant adjectives
in various places to make the meaning clear to you.]

Tom Clarke

Vern wrote in message ...
Tom Clarke wrote:


Snip


As Greywolf42 has told you, all particulate aether theories have
different predictions than standard theories. One of the interesting
ones that Rado identified is that GR is based on Galilean relativity
which means that a particle accelerated to near the speed of light and
then released will continue at the velocity it last achieved. In the AK
(not RK) model, that particle would slow down due to Aether resistance.

Vern

My theory is partly particulate but it has no different predictions
than std ether theories that I have discovered so far. My ether model
(of the universe) accepts the Big Bang Theory but provides an
alternate suggestion for the Inflationary Period theory. It accepts
SR's resolution to the Twin Paradox and then extends it into a claim
that time is a property of matter. From there, it separates time and
space.

Then, it contends that light is a combination of wave and particle,
but only when the lightwave force collides with dark matter and the
collision creates light. The ether, thus, is none other than the dark
matter and energy which comprise our space. The ether is not visible
to us because it is comprised of "potential" particles which have no
motion and thus, no time and no temperature. We can see only objects
having temperature because temperature creates motion, and motion
provides the accrual of time rates to discrete matter, objects, and
systems.

My model describes the light process as similar to an electronic
signboard where graphics seem to move across its surface but where of
course they are not really moving - they just appear to be doing that.

This is the first I have heard of "Rado's theory", but it sounds
really interesting. Where can I read it?
TomGee
101404