Chaotic pilot wave

[mpc755]

'Pilot-Wave Hydrodynamics
John W.M. Bush'
math.mit.edu/~bush/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Bush-ARFM-2015.pdf

"Finally, as concerns my alignment vis-a-vis quantum interpretations, I remain steadfastly agnostic; however, if forced to choose, I would be inclined to back, by virtue of its inclusivity, the logical extension of the Many-Worlds interpretation (Everett 1957), the Many-Many-Worlds interpretation, according to which each quantum interpretation is realized in some edition of the multimultiverse, and there is even one world in which there is only one world, a world in which quantum statistics are underlaid by chaotic pilot-wave dynamics, there is no philosophical schism between large and small, and beables be."

'NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE'

"* Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a "subquantic medium" which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call "empty space"."

Which is related to:

'Dark Matter as the "OS" of the Universe --"It's a Quantum Fluid Governing the Formation of the Structure of the Cosmos"'
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/09/dark-matter-as-the-os-of-the-universe-its-a-very-cold-quantum-fluid-governing-the-formation-of-the-s.html

"so disturbance patterns are formed on astronomic scales in the form of large-scale waves"

"The results are very promising as they open up the possibility that dark matter could be regarded as a very cold quantum fluid that governs the formation of the structure across the whole Universe."

[JanPB]

Post by mpc755
'NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE'
"* Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a "subquantic medium" which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call "empty space"."

This is very much what mystics have been saying since forever, BTW. Namely, that the physically perceptible world is only a "surface" of an "ocean" (the "waving" implication implicit in that metaphor is intentional in the trade) which is far bigger. Another thing they said was that space and _time_ are substances (I have a hard time accepting the latter but who knows, as I keep saying strange things have been reified by modern physics already).

I suspect the way out of the GR-vs-QM dilemma is to come up with a model including space as an "actor", not merely a (curved!) background. All attempts at quantising gravitation have failed precisely for that reason, I think. In that sense I agree with Roger Penrose when he says that current fashion of making GR quantum-mechanical is wrong-headed and something like the opposite approach is likely to be the more correct one.

Recall that something similar happened in 1905: Einstein made mechanics EM-like at the time most physicists tried to make it the other way: EM to be Newtonian-mechanics like (aether was needed for that).

Last but not least: the de Broglie family is mentioned by Marcel Proust in his "Search of Lost Time".

--
Jan

[mpc755]

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the aether.

[JanPB]

Post by mpc755
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the aether.

No, come on. They are totally different mathematical objects, defined in different spaces.

And aether is not defined in either theory. Your heart is in a good place but the devil is in the details :-)

--
Jan

[mpc755]

Post by JanPB

Post by mpc755
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the aether.

No, come on. They are totally different mathematical objects, defined in different spaces.
And aether is not defined in either theory. Your heart is in a good place but the devil is in the details :-)
--
Jan

'Comment on the higher derivative Lagrangians in relativistic theory'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5759.pdf

"The relativistic theory of an Aether was discussed several time, see for e.g. [8], [9]. In this paper,
our hypothesis is different and gives a relativistic theory of the deformation of continuous media (for which the geometry is described by the metric field)."

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of continuous media.

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

What is referred to as the deformation of spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.

[Lord Androcles]

Post by JanPB

Post by mpc755
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle
duality; both are waves in the aether.

No, come on. They are totally different mathematical objects, defined in different spaces.
And aether is not defined in either theory. Your heart is in a good place
but the devil is in the details :-)
--
Jan

'Comment on the higher derivative Lagrangians in relativistic theory'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5759.pdf

"The relativistic theory of an Aether was discussed several time, see for
e.g. [8], [9]. In this paper,
our hypothesis is different and gives a relativistic theory of the
deformation of continuous media (for which the geometry is described by the
metric field)."

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of continuous media.

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

What is referred to as the deformation of spacetime is the state of
displacement of the aether.
=====================================================
Comment on aether...
*plonk*

-- The Reverend Lord Androcles.
REWARD: ounce of gold (worth US$1200)
I am offering 1 oz for the head of the murderer(s)
of James Foley, Steven Sotloff or David Haines,
on a spike, mounted on London Bridge as we
would have done in medieval times.
Add your own contribution and spread the word.
It's eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, head for a head,
barbarism for barbarism. Go get 'em, Obama, and
earn your Nobel peace prize.

[mpc755]

"The Wave Mechanics of systems of particles as we have just set forth, following Schrodinger, is an essentially non-relativistic theory because it assumes that the interactions can be represented at every instant by functions of the actual separation distances of the particles, whereas in a relativistic theory of interactions, these interactions are propagated at a finite velocity, which introduces retardation of one sort or another. A relativistic Wave Mechanics of the systems cannot be developed along the lines we have indicated, and only recently has there been any attempt to construct such a Mechanics within the framework of Quantum Field Theory (works by Tomonaga, Schwinger, Feynman, etc.). Let us simply emphasize the fact that the theory set forth above is valid only for the Newtonian approximation.
Schrodinger's idea of identifying the W wave of a system in configuration space at first shocked me very greatly, because, configuration space being a pure fiction, this conception deprives the W wave of all physical reality. For me the wave of Wave Mechanics should have evolved in three-dimensional physical space. The numerous and brilliant successes that resulted from adopting Schrodinger's point of view' obliged me to recognize its value; but for a long time I remained convinced that the propagation of the W wave in configuration space was a purely imaginary way of representing wave phenomena which, in point of fact, take place in physical space. We will see in the second part of the present work (Chapter XII) how, from 1927 on, I had sought to develop this approach within the framework of the theory of the Double Solution." de Broglie

In the following article the aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.

'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900

[John Heath]

There is a additional advantage to the Bohm and Vigiera hypothesis. If the properties of say a proton are mostly how a vacuum reacts to a proton then the faster the proton moves through a vacuum the greater the properties as more vacuum is being effected. Somewhat like being hit by more rain drops when running in the rain. This could be the Newtonian means for mass to increase and time to dilate with relative speed. Food for thought.

Post by mpc755
"The Wave Mechanics of systems of particles as we have just set forth, following Schrodinger, is an essentially non-relativistic theory because it assumes that the interactions can be represented at every instant by functions of the actual separation distances of the particles, whereas in a relativistic theory of interactions, these interactions are propagated at a finite velocity, which introduces retardation of one sort or another. A relativistic Wave Mechanics of the systems cannot be developed along the lines we have indicated, and only recently has there been any attempt to construct such a Mechanics within the framework of Quantum Field Theory (works by Tomonaga, Schwinger, Feynman, etc.). Let us simply emphasize the fact that the theory set forth above is valid only for the Newtonian approximation.
Schrodinger's idea of identifying the W wave of a system in configuration space at first shocked me very greatly, because, configuration space being a pure fiction, this conception deprives the W wave of all physical reality. For me the wave of Wave Mechanics should have evolved in three-dimensional physical space. The numerous and brilliant successes that resulted from adopting Schrodinger's point of view' obliged me to recognize its value; but for a long time I remained convinced that the propagation of the W wave in configuration space was a purely imaginary way of representing wave phenomena which, in point of fact, take place in physical space. We will see in the second part of the present work (Chapter XII) how, from 1927 on, I had sought to develop this approach within the framework of the theory of the Double Solution." de Broglie
In the following article the aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.
'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900

[Lord Androcles]

"John Heath" wrote in message news:bb6d4148-f99a-4443-a810-***@googlegroups.com...

Somewhat like being hit by more rain drops when running in the rain.
===================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow

A person standing still in the rain/snow in windless conditions presents
only his head and shoulders to the vector field of the vertically falling
rain/snow. Running, which is the equivalent of a head-wind, causes the
rain/snow to coat the front of his body as it is coming from an angle, and
is also the equivalent of leaning back while standing still.
A sphere does not get hit by more raindrops when speeding through rain, it
doesn't change the surface area it presents.

-- The Reverend Lord Androcles.
REWARD: ounce of gold (worth US$1200)
I am offering 1 oz. for the head of the murderer
of James Foley, Steven Sotloff and David Haines,
the so-called "Jihadi John", traitor, on a spike,
mounted on London Bridge as we would have
done in medieval times.
Add your own contribution and spread the word.
It's eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, head for a head,
barbarism for barbarism. Go get 'em, Obama, and
earn your Nobel peace prize.

[mpc755]

Aether has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. The relativistc mass of the object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

[Tom Roberts]

Post by mpc755
Aether has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

It must take energy for a moving object to "displace" a "massive aether". So why
don't the planets fall into the sun? -- After all, if this is true then their
kinetic energy must be continually being transferred to the aether.

If light is a wave in the "aether", why don't the planets generate light as they
orbit the sun? -- After all, they must generate waves in the "massive aether" as
they "displace" it.

If "relativistic mass" is the result of a faster object having "greater aether
displacement", why does that happen with the specific dependence on speed of the
gamma factor? -- why does c figure so prominently in it? And why don't such
moving objects also generate light? -- they must generate waves in the "aether"
as they "displace" it? How can high-energy cosmic rays travel galactic
distances, if their kinetic energy is continually transferred to the "aether" as
they "displace" it?

If light is just a wave in the "aether", why does the decay of some elementary
particles particles generate such waves (e.g. pi0), while the decays of other
particles do not (e.g. pi+, pi-, and most other particles)? Why are the three
pions so closely related yet so different in this (with such radically different
lifetimes)?

If light is just a wave in the "aether', how does quantum optics work?

If light is just a wave in the "aether', and moving objects "displace" it, how
is it that electrons orbiting an atom don't make waves, but electrons
transitioning from one orbital state to another do? And why are these latter
waves so focused directionally, with such precise energies?


Those are just a few of the questions you must answer. There are zillions more.
I suspect you have not thought this out very well, primarily because you are
ignorant about most of modern physics.

In the history of physics there is not a single instance of someone
making an important contribution who did not understand the then-
current theories and experiments. If you really want to make a
difference, you should be STUDYING, and not wasting your time on
nonsense.


Tom Roberts

[benj]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by mpc755
Aether has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which
exist in it and move through it.

It must take energy for a moving object to "displace" a "massive
aether". So why don't the planets fall into the sun? -- After all, if
this is true then their kinetic energy must be continually being
transferred to the aether.

Wrong. Aeither is "super"! So how does electricity flow forever in a
"superconductor" without all the energy being dissipated? Back in the
days of aether theory "super" phenomena wasn't known.

Post by Tom Roberts
If light is a wave in the "aether", why don't the planets generate light
as they orbit the sun? -- After all, they must generate waves in the
"massive aether" as they "displace" it.

Electrons do this. A planet is pretty massive you know! Anyway MM proved
planets do NOT "displace" aether. That theory is DEAD! Planets drag
aether along with them. There is NO "aether wind".

Post by Tom Roberts
If "relativistic mass" is the result of a faster object having "greater
aether displacement", why does that happen with the specific dependence
on speed of the gamma factor? -- why does c figure so prominently in it?
And why don't such moving objects also generate light? -- they must
generate waves in the "aether" as they "displace" it? How can
high-energy cosmic rays travel galactic distances, if their kinetic
energy is continually transferred to the "aether" as they "displace" it?

Note c figures in such things because it the speed of propagation of
forces in aether. Consider this: I've got a mass and I want to
accelerate it. How do I do that? Well I could shoot some particles at it
to give it some kinetic energy. And it starts to move. But what happens
as the thing picks up velocity? What if pretty soon it's moving ALMOST
as fast as the particles I'm shooting at it? They can't really transfer
energy to it anymore in an efficient way! Hence looking at this
operation one could conclude from F = ma that somehow the MASS is
getting bigger! In other words I apply the SAME force but acceleration
is small hence m must be larger! But is the object really getting
"heavier"? Nope it's still the same object. Can you dig it?

Post by Tom Roberts
If light is just a wave in the "aether", why does the decay of some
elementary particles particles generate such waves (e.g. pi0), while the
decays of other particles do not (e.g. pi+, pi-, and most other
particles)? Why are the three pions so closely related yet so different
in this (with such radically different lifetimes)?
If light is just a wave in the "aether', how does quantum optics work?
If light is just a wave in the "aether', and moving objects "displace"
it, how is it that electrons orbiting an atom don't make waves, but
electrons transitioning from one orbital state to another do? And why
are these latter waves so focused directionally, with such precise
energies?
Those are just a few of the questions you must answer. There are
zillions more. I suspect you have not thought this out very well,
primarily because you are ignorant about most of modern physics.
In the history of physics there is not a single instance of someone
making an important contribution who did not understand the then-
current theories and experiments. If you really want to make a
difference, you should be STUDYING, and not wasting your time on
nonsense.
Tom Roberts

yeah, Boinker agrees with you. If you want to be smart, read lots of
books and then parrot what you read to anyone who will listen! They'll
worship your genius feet!

Or on the other hand you could put your big-assed shocker down and begin
THINKING instead.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/

[mpc755]

Post by benj
Electrons do this. A planet is pretty massive you know! Anyway MM proved
planets do NOT "displace" aether. That theory is DEAD! Planets drag
aether along with them. There is NO "aether wind".

The MMX looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

[JanPB]

Post by benj
yeah, Boinker agrees with you. If you want to be smart, read lots of
books and then parrot what you read to anyone who will listen! They'll
worship your genius feet!

You've missed the point. It's not about anyone knowing such-and-such theory, it's about experimental results.

--
Jan

[Tom Roberts]

Anyway MM proved planets
do NOT "displace" aether.

Michelson and Morley of course did no such thing. They merely showed that there
is no significant fringe shift as the orientation of their interferometer
changed. One can INTERPRET this in many different ways using many different
theories, but it doesn't "prove" anything except the absence of significant
fringe shift in their measurements (and that's not really "proof").

That theory is DEAD!

Well, yes. But for other reasons; the MMX is merely part of that.

Apparently you have some different notions than MPX755.

Planets drag aether along with
them. There is NO "aether wind".

So you say, but fail to demonstrate. And it seems you have not thought this through:

How does stellar aberration work?

How can the "drag" be so perfect, that no measurements can detect any variations
corresponding to an "aether wind"? (Michelson interferometers have been flown in
satellites and balloons.)

If the earth "drags" the aether perfectly, how do transparent objects work at
its surface or underground? And how does the speed of flowing water change the
speed of light passing through it (Fizeau experiment)?

How about all the other questions I asked that indicate fundamental problems
with the notion of "aether"?

Post by Tom Roberts
If "relativistic mass" is the result of a faster object having "greater
aether displacement", why does that happen with the specific dependence
on speed of the gamma factor? -- why does c figure so prominently in it?
And why don't such moving objects also generate light? -- they must
generate waves in the "aether" as they "displace" it? How can
high-energy cosmic rays travel galactic distances, if their kinetic
energy is continually transferred to the "aether" as they "displace" it?

Note c figures in such things because it the speed of propagation of forces in
aether. Consider this: I've got a mass and I want to accelerate it. How do I do
that? Well I could shoot some particles at it to give it some kinetic energy.
And it starts to move. But what happens as the thing picks up velocity? What if
pretty soon it's moving ALMOST as fast as the particles I'm shooting at it? They
can't really transfer energy to it anymore in an efficient way! Hence looking at
this operation one could conclude from F = ma that somehow the MASS is getting
bigger! In other words I apply the SAME force but acceleration is small hence m
must be larger! But is the object really getting "heavier"? Nope it's still the
same object. Can you dig it?

I understand the analogy to machine-gun bullets not being able to push a target
faster than they themselves are going. You provide a "just so story" about that,
but the details of your description here don't apply to bullets pushing an object.

And I don't see how this might apply to an aether. In a particle accelerator we
set up the accelerating fields BEFORE the particles arrive. If you think an
electric field is a bunch of "aether particles" moving with speed c along the
field lines and "pushing charges", then where does the energy for that come
from? -- static electric fields require no energy input once they are
established. And if electric fields are "aether particles pushing charges", how
is it that in a particle accelerator more power must be supplied when more beam
is accelerated? (With higher beam current the voltage sags, until more power is
supplied.)

If you want to be smart, read lots of books and
then parrot what you read to anyone who will listen! They'll worship your genius
feet!
Or on the other hand you could put your big-assed shocker down and begin
THINKING instead.

You obviously have a chip on your shoulder that is so large you cannot see past
it. YOU apparently do not know what "thinking" means in the context of physics.
And you clearly understand so little about either physics or science that you
cannot distinguish between understanding and "parroting". It's also clear that
you do not understand the relationship between theories and the real world. Nor
do you have the slightest inkling about what I actually do (presumably because
thinking about science is so very far from your personal experience).


Tom Roberts

[mpc755]

where the object had been and displaces,back.

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by mpc755
Aether has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

It must take energy for a moving object to "displace" a "massive aether". So why
don't the planets fall into the sun? -- After all, if this is true then their
kinetic energy must be continually being transferred to the aether.

The aether is, or behaves similar to a supersolid. There no loss of energy in the interaction of an object and the aether. Whatever energy is required to displace the aether the aether retuns to th object as it fills in where the object had been and displaces back.

Post by Tom Roberts
If light is a wave in the "aether", why don't the planets generate light as they
orbit the sun? -- After all, they must generate waves in the "massive aether" as
they "displace" it.

Aether changes state at c. The displacement wave out ahead of the sun travels at the speed of the sun.

Post by Tom Roberts
If "relativistic mass" is the result of a faster object having "greater aether
displacement", why does that happen with the specific dependence on speed of the
gamma factor? -- why does c figure so prominently in it? And why don't such
moving objects also generate light? -- they must generate waves in the "aether"
as they "displace" it? How can high-energy cosmic rays travel galactic
distances, if their kinetic energy is continually transferred to the "aether" as
they "displace" it?
If light is just a wave in the "aether", why does the decay of some elementary
particles particles generate such waves (e.g. pi0), while the decays of other
particles do not (e.g. pi+, pi-, and most other particles)? Why are the three
pions so closely related yet so different in this (with such radically different
lifetimes)?
If light is just a wave in the "aether', how does quantum optics work?
If light is just a wave in the "aether', and moving objects "displace" it, how
is it that electrons orbiting an atom don't make waves, but electrons
transitioning from one orbital state to another do? And why are these latter
waves so focused directionally, with such precise energies?
Those are just a few of the questions you must answer. There are zillions more.
I suspect you have not thought this out very well, primarily because you are
ignorant about most of modern physics.
In the history of physics there is not a single instance of someone
making an important contribution who did not understand the then-
current theories and experiments. If you really want to make a
difference, you should be STUDYING, and not wasting your time on
nonsense.
Tom Roberts

Q. Why is the particle always detected in a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.

[Tom Roberts]

where the object had been and displaces,back. On Sunday, September 28, 2014

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by mpc755
Aether has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist
in it and move through it.

It must take energy for a moving object to "displace" a "massive aether". So why
don't the planets fall into the sun? -- After all, if this is true then their
kinetic energy must be continually being transferred to the aether.

The aether is, or behaves similar to a supersolid. There no loss of energy in
the interaction of an object and the aether.

I see. You're invoking MAGIC. Or perhaps just ignorance of what superfluid and
supersolid actually mean.

In a real superfluid, the FLUID will flow without friction around any object,
but a moving object immersed in the superfluid will be slowed, and eventually
(with a large enough volume of superfluid) will come to a stop. This is due to
the energy required to displace the superfluid -- while it flows without
friction, it still has inertia, and it requires energy to move it. The
superfluid CANNOT "transfer this energy back to the object" as you seem to think.

In doing work on the superfluid, the moving object can heat
the superfluid to the point it becomes an ordinary fluid,
especially locally near its surface. I'm ignoring this, as it
presumably does not apply to a putative "superfluid or
supersolid aether".

Ditto for a real supersolid -- the solid can "flow" (in that vacancies in the
crystal structure move about freely without friction). But moving some other
object through the supersolid requires energy to displace the supersolid's atoms.

Basically the atoms in the supersolid are all reduced to a
single quantum state throughout the crystal lattice (including
vacancies). They are necessarily identical atoms, and this
property of flowing freely does not extend to non-identical
atoms or objects.

Whatever energy is required to
displace the aether the aether retuns to th object as it fills in where the
object had been and displaces back.

More MAGIC. Real supersolids do not behave this way.

Post by Tom Roberts
If light is a wave in the "aether", why don't the planets generate light as they
orbit the sun? -- After all, they must generate waves in the "massive aether" as
they "displace" it.

Aether changes state at c. The displacement wave out ahead of the sun travels
at the speed of the sun.

Why isn't this "aether wave" observed as light?

[... many more of my questions left unanswered.]

You give the impression that you have a "just so story" about "supersolid
aether", but don't really know what that means, or have a real theory about it.


Tom Roberts

[Trent Snider]

Post by Tom Roberts
In a real superfluid, the FLUID will flow without friction around any
object, but a moving object immersed in the superfluid will be slowed,
and eventually (with a large enough volume of superfluid) will come to a
stop.
This is due to the energy required to displace the superfluid -- while
it flows without friction, it still has inertia, and it requires energy
to move it. The superfluid CANNOT "transfer this energy back to the
object" as you seem to think.

Pardone moi, I believe this is exactly what happens with the Russian
supersonic submarines. The frontal dissipation energy is transferred
backward along the fuselage, giving it a push forward..

[mpc755]

Post by Tom Roberts

where the object had been and displaces,back. On Sunday, September 28, 2014

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by mpc755
Aether has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist
in it and move through it.

It must take energy for a moving object to "displace" a "massive aether".
So why
don't the planets fall into the sun? -- After all, if this is true then
their
kinetic energy must be continually being transferred to the aether.

The aether is, or behaves similar to a supersolid. There no loss of energy in
the interaction of an object and the aether.

I see. You're invoking MAGIC. Or perhaps just ignorance of what superfluid and
supersolid actually mean.
In a real superfluid, the FLUID will flow without friction around any object,
but a moving object immersed in the superfluid will be slowed, and eventually
(with a large enough volume of superfluid) will come to a stop. This is due to
the energy required to displace the superfluid -- while it flows without
friction, it still has inertia, and it requires energy to move it. The
superfluid CANNOT "transfer this energy back to the object" as you seem to think.
In doing work on the superfluid, the moving object can heat
the superfluid to the point it becomes an ordinary fluid,
especially locally near its surface. I'm ignoring this, as it
presumably does not apply to a putative "superfluid or
supersolid aether".
Ditto for a real supersolid -- the solid can "flow" (in that vacancies in the
crystal structure move about freely without friction). But moving some other
object through the supersolid requires energy to displace the supersolid's atoms.
Basically the atoms in the supersolid are all reduced to a
single quantum state throughout the crystal lattice (including
vacancies). They are necessarily identical atoms, and this
property of flowing freely does not extend to non-identical
atoms or objects.

Whatever energy is required to
displace the aether the aether retuns to th object as it fills in where the
object had been and displaces back.

More MAGIC. Real supersolids do not behave this way.

Post by Tom Roberts
If light is a wave in the "aether", why don't the planets generate light as
they
orbit the sun? -- After all, they must generate waves in the "massive
aether" as
they "displace" it.

Aether changes state at c. The displacement wave out ahead of the sun travels
at the speed of the sun.

Why isn't this "aether wave" observed as light?

[... many more of my questions left unanswered.]

You give the impression that you have a "just so story" about "supersolid
aether", but don't really know what that means, or have a real theory about it.
Tom Roberts

In the following article the aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.

'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900

I must have missed where you explained why the particle is always detected traveling through a single slit.

[John Heath]

First to Lord's point. I am a sphere standing in the rain that is falling at a rate of 1 meter per second with 1 rain drop per meter ^2 . I now run forward at 10 meters per second . While standing still I was hit by 1 drop per second. When running at 10 meters per second I was hit by 10 drops per second. If I were a proton who's properties are mostly the reaction of a vacuum to my presents then movement through that vacuum could increase my mass and charge by 10 times. It would be cool if it could be that simple. Your point of the shape of the object in the rain could have something to do with why the magnetic moment of a electron is always facing forward in the direction of movement? It is a bit of a reach but the vacuum rain drops should effect the electron more in the longitudinal direction than the transverse. From these shoes the magnetic moment is the property of the vacuum rather than the electron. I am convinced some day a kid with thick glasses is going to come up with a unification theory that is so simple we will all bang our forehead with our hand wondering how we missed it. Nature can not be that complicated.

To mpc755 or Mac if memory serves. I agree with you. I would set dynamic aether mass slightly less near mass to stay obedient to Coulomb's law. Vacuum has charge and the proton has a + charge parity. From my shoes that one is checkmate as charge parity must causer expansion to satisfy Coulomb's law. This is in conflict with general relativity with relative inertia going up with gravity. However GR is not written in stone . Relative size or relative inertia of a system will both cause time to dilate. Using relative size instead brings us closer to our back yard where a gas gets colder when it expands. Time dilation on a much grander scale than vacuum time dilation.

Post by mpc755
Aether has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. The relativistc mass of the object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

[Lord Androcles]

"John Heath" wrote in message news:87b388ac-8372-4b09-b22d-***@googlegroups.com...


First to Lord's point. I am a sphere standing in the rain that is falling at
a rate of 1 meter per second with 1 rain drop per meter ^2 .
================================
So in one second you are hit by the only raindrop that fell in that second.




I now run forward at 10 meters per second .
========================================
Now you are hit by no raindrops, you ran out from under the only one that
fell in that second.


While standing still I was hit by 1 drop per second. When running at 10
meters per second I was hit by 10 drops per second.
======================================
Absolutely not, the 1 drop a second fell on the square meter you were
standing on. Rain would have to fall at 10 drops a second for 10 drops to
wet you in a second.

-- The Reverend Lord Androcles.
REWARD: ounce of gold (worth US$1200)
I am offering 1 oz. for the head of the murderer
of James Foley, Steven Sotloff and David Haines,
the so-called "Jihadi John", traitor, on a spike,
mounted on London Bridge as we would have
done in medieval times.
Add your own contribution and spread the word.
It's eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, head for a head,
barbarism for barbarism. Go get 'em, Obama, and
earn your Nobel peace prize.

[John Heath]

A rate of 1 rain drop per square meter per second. Every square meter has 1 drop per second falling on it. As you run sideways at 10 meters per second you will run into 10 drops as you are moving 10 meters per second. If you stand still only 1 drop per second. Moving upward at 10 meters per second has the same result if that helps. If you put your hand out a car window at 60 MPH in the rain you will experience the point being made.

Post by John Heath
First to Lord's point. I am a sphere standing in the rain that is falling at
a rate of 1 meter per second with 1 rain drop per meter ^2 .
================================
So in one second you are hit by the only raindrop that fell in that second.
I now run forward at 10 meters per second .
========================================
Now you are hit by no raindrops, you ran out from under the only one that
fell in that second.
While standing still I was hit by 1 drop per second. When running at 10
meters per second I was hit by 10 drops per second.
======================================
Absolutely not, the 1 drop a second fell on the square meter you were
standing on. Rain would have to fall at 10 drops a second for 10 drops to
wet you in a second.
-- The Reverend Lord Androcles.
REWARD: ounce of gold (worth US$1200)
I am offering 1 oz. for the head of the murderer
of James Foley, Steven Sotloff and David Haines,
the so-called "Jihadi John", traitor, on a spike,
mounted on London Bridge as we would have
done in medieval times.
Add your own contribution and spread the word.
It's eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, head for a head,
barbarism for barbarism. Go get 'em, Obama, and
earn your Nobel peace prize.

[Lord Androcles]

"John Heath" wrote in message news:af4b84cd-75db-4837-8bfb-***@googlegroups.com...


A rate of 1 rain drop per square meter per second. Every square meter has 1
drop per second falling on it. As you run sideways at 10 meters per second
you will run into 10 drops
=================================================
So there are a total of 10 raindrops available to run into in one second and
you are going to collect all of them at a rate of 10 raindrops drops a
second.
Crabs run sideways. Being a spherical crab your radius has to be...
1 sq m = pi.r^2
1/pi = r^2
r = sqrt(1/pi)
= 0.56418958354775628694807945156077
and your diameter is 1.128 meters.
Running at 10 m/s for one second you'll travel 10/11.28 = 8.8 diameters/sec

Earth's standard acceleration due to gravity is:

g = 9.80665 m/s^2 (32.1740 ft/s^2).

1/2 gt^2 when t = 1 gives a height of 4.9 meters for the raindrop to fall
from without air resistance.

After one second all ten raindrops are either on the ground or on you.
Start running when the first raindrop hits you or you'll miss it.
Five raindrops are already on the ground before you get there. Four are
still falling behind you (from a height of 5 metres) after you've passed
them. No matter how fast you run, you'll get wet according to the time you
spend out in the rain. You can't have more raindrops by increasing the area
you run over. As you run sideways at 10 meters per second you will run into
1 raindrop. Now calculate the probability that the raindrop will hit below
your radius as you run into it.

-- The Reverend Lord Androcles.
REWARD: ounce of gold (worth US$1200)
I am offering 1 oz. for the head of the murderer
of James Foley, Steven Sotloff and David Haines,
the so-called "Jihadi John", traitor, on a spike,
mounted on London Bridge as we would have
done in medieval times.
Add your own contribution and spread the word.
It's eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, head for a head,
barbarism for barbarism. Go get 'em, Obama, and
earn your Nobel peace prize.

[mpc755]

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

"When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles."

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous "energetic contact" with a hidden medium"

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The "energetic contact" is the state of displacement of the aether.

"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."

A particle may be likened in a first approximation to a moving singularity which has an associated aether displacement wave.

"the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave"

"If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory."

de Broglie is referring to a relativistic aether.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the aether. The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.

What is referred to as the deformation of spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

In a double slit experiment it is the aether that waves.

[John Heath]

Post by mpc755
'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
"When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles."
"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous "energetic contact" with a hidden medium"
The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The "energetic contact" is the state of displacement of the aether.
"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."
A particle may be likened in a first approximation to a moving singularity which has an associated aether displacement wave.
"the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave"
"If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory."
de Broglie is referring to a relativistic aether.
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the aether. The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.
The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.
What is referred to as the deformation of spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.
The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.
In a double slit experiment it is the aether that waves.

To think of a particle such as a electron as a singularity would explain why it does not radiate its energy away. The next question is why only a electron mass or a muon mass with nothing in between? What is it about masses of a precise value that work but other masses are not possible or stable? The Koide formula is the closes to try and answer this question.