______________________________________________________________________________
|  File Name      : AETHER02.ASC     |  Online Date     :  09/09/95          |
|  Contributed by : InterNet         |  Dir Category    :  ENERGY            |
|  From           : KeelyNet BBS     |  DataLine        :  (214) 324-3501    |
|           KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187         |
|        A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences      |
|              InterNet email keelynet@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Decker)          |
|      Files also available at Bill Beaty's http://www.eskimo.com/~billb     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
The following file is from an InterNet USENET response in the alt.sci.physics.
new-theories section.  It provides an interesting exchange on the properties
of the aether as being a solid mass yet laced with interstices where rhombic
dodecahedrons, tetrahedrons and other geometries connect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rt@iprolink.co.nz (Ray Tomes)
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1995 11:22:17 GMT

genegdman@aol.com (GeneGdman) wrote:

>rt@iprolink.co.nz (Ray Tomes)wrote:

>>Gene, I agree with you that an ether must have mechanical and/or
>>kinematic properties.  However these properties are not the normal
>>mechanical and kinematic properties of other objects.  By this I mean
>>that if the ether was made of little particles, then they would have
>>velocity and a sort of temperature (variance in velocities) but these
>>properties would not correspond directly to any observed temperature.
>>In fact, in such a case, the ether temperature would very likely be low
>>where our observed temperatures are high.

>Ray,  as you probably already know, my own concept of the ether is that it
>is continuous except for discontinuities at the center of protons (and the
>interior of black holes).  I have had difficulty getting a number of
>people to form the concept of an ether that has no subdivisions.  No
>matter how many times I try to explain what continuous means, they keep
>insisting my ether must be composed of particles.  It seems that the ether
>you describe above is not a space subdivided into particles, but an
>otherwise empty space that contains a few particles per unit volume as
>would a gas.

Gene, although at one time I did think that a particle model would work
for the ether, I now agree with you that a continuous solid ether is the
preferred model.  My "If the ether was particles" was only to show that
this would clearly have kinematic properties.

>The discussions of "background radiation" have caused me to think  a lot
>more about the possibility that the ether may be subdivided.  I still do
>not think so, but even if it is, I can't believe the subdivisions are not
>contiguous.  That there are interstices.  If these contiguous subdivisions
>were elastic rather than rigid, then all of the subdivisions would not
>have to be simultaneously in the exactly the same state of motion.  This
>kind of ether would behave exactly like a continuous elastic solid but I
>can't figure out what shape the subdivisions could be.  It seems likely
>they would be identical, but if so, cubes or tetrahedrons are the only
>regular shapes I can think of that will even form a solid with no
>interstices.

Rhombic Dodecahedrons can pack space and are the nearest to spheres.
For this reason I believe that standing waves which are nearly
spherical can pack in that way also.  Buckminster Fuller worked
with tetrahedrons but his writing is very difficult to understand.

>The only reason I can think of for subdividing is that it
>may facilitate the mathematical treatment.  It hasn't for me, but thinking
>about it has made me understand a lot more about mathematics than I did as
>a student.

>I wonder what you meant by the statement that our observed temperatures
>are high.  How are you defining heat?  How do other people define it?
>What do you mean by the word temperature?  What do others mean?  How are
>we doing the observing?

Temperature is simply a measurement of the variance of particle
velocities in a small region.  Except for em waves (see below).

>What do you suppose the folks that say there is a "background microwave
>radiation" mean by the word radiation?  What do they use for a detector?
>Is it something that has a flat bandwidth over the microwave spectrum only
>and cuts off sharply above and below?

The CMBR is electromagnetic waves mainly in the 1mm to 1cm range.
The power in the spectrum has now been accurately determined over a
wide range (it was previously limited by the earth's atmosphere).
I don't know how the detectors work.

>Does it detect waves that are not
>in motion with respect to it?  If so, how does it do this?  Or is it
>something that integrates every bit of "electromagnetic" (quote marks
>because this term vanishes in my theory) radiation from every source in
>the universe, that impinges on some form of detector? Even if it was
>restricted to the infrared spectrum, if temperature is in some way
>proportional to this radiation, I would expect the temperature to be very
>high.

The motion of the source is not the significant factor.  The wavelength
in our moving frame of reference is.  According to the measurements of
the imbalance in frequencies of the CMBR in different directions, we are
doing 370 km/s relative to it.  The temperature of the CMBR is really
a measure of the average wavelength, but also defines the wavelength
distribution as it is a blackbody radiation.  It is low (<3K) because
it is the distribution that would result if the radiation was in thermal
equilibrium with matter at the same temperature.

>When the word radiation used in electronics, to me it has always meant a
>wave propagating at the speed of light.  Is their background microwave
>radiation stationary in space?  Or is it new dispersive radiation being
>continuously generated everywhere that should exhibit interference
>patterns?

Yes, at the speed of light.  It is standard EM waves.
It cannot exhibit interference patterns because it is not coherent and
has a uniform distribution of frequencies.

>Frankly I think the confusion level introduced by thermodynamics and by
>Einstein, Bohr and Heisenberg has reached the point that everyone is just
>grasping at straws.  To think clearly about it at all, you have to ignore
>everyone else's conclusions and just use the results of experiments that
>do not depend on prior conclusions.  I wish they would just tell me what
>they actually did and leave all the concluding to me.

I think that this argument is true of many QM experiments, but not of
the CMBR measurements.  I would certainly like to see the raw data of
the Bell's inequality measurements to test David Elm's theory.

Ray Tomes <rt@iprolink.co.nz>
http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------