[Physics] Aether theory discussion

[Arend Lammertink]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Ruud Loeffen <rmmloeffen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Arend wrote:
> So, my proposal would be to start with a basic hypothesis:
>
> All of space is filled with a fluid-like substance called aether,
> which can, in first approximation, be modeled as an ideal,
> frictionless, compressible fluid in continuum fluid dynamics
> approximation.
>
> From there, we can re-derive Maxwell's equations by application of the
> Laplacian / Helmhotz decomposition of the aether flow velocity field
> [v]. This exercise show that there is a term dA/dt in the definition
> for the electric scalar potential field Phi, whereby the units of
> measurement do not match the other terms in the equation and should
> thus be deleted.
>
> That's where we are now.
>
> I followed the discussions about Maxwell equations and the quantum particles
> with interest. I have to admit that I am not capable to critic or improve
> what is deliberated here on these subjects. But the above quotation triggers
> me to join in on the point of the aether flow velocity field [v]. In
> Mind-blowing gravitation I stated that the aether is very likely to play an
> important role on gravitation/expansion. Now the discussion also concerns
> the vortex phenomena as shown in the very interesting video
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8&authuser=0
> This video makes me think about another video about vortex that concerns our
> solarsystem: "The helical model -  our solarsystem is a vortex."

Yes, our solar system _is_ a vortex indeed, as animated in that video.

However, note that planets orbit the sun in a plane, except for Pluto,
if we are to believe what as is being said here:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/57-our-solar-system/planets-and-dwarf-planets/orbits/242-why-do-all-the-planets-orbit-in-the-same-plane-intermediate
"The orbits of the planets are coplanar because during the Solar
System's formation, the planets formed out of a disk of dust which
surrounded the Sun. Because that disk of dust was a disk, all in a
plane, all of the planets formed in a plane as well.

Rings and disks are common in astronomy. When a cloud collapses, the
conservation of angular momentum amplifies any initial tiny spin of
the cloud. As the cloud spins faster and faster, it collapses into a
disk, which is the maximal balance between gravitational collapse and
centrifugal force created by rapid spin. The result is the coplanar
planets, the thin disks of spiral galaxies, and the accretion disks
around black holes."


"Rings and disks are common in astronomy."


Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

Rings can be considered to be "vortex rings", as we have considered /
hypothesized the electron to be.

But how about "disks", as we observe in the coplanar orbits of the planets?

Obviously, these are different from "rings". Now let's consider
Haramein's "dual torus" again:

http://www.tuks.nl/img/dualtorus.gif
http://www.tuks.nl/img/dualtorus_big.gif

Notice that when considering *two* vortex rings in a particular
configuration, that a "disk" forms in the middle of the spherical dual
torus structure.

Now what would happen if we created two of these vortex rings in a
vacuum chamber using particularly shaped magnets and create a plasma
in/around the area which would be the "disk" in Haramein's picture??

Fortunately, we won't have to guess, because this is exactly what
David LaPoint did and the results are truly amazing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI

This is such an important video, that I encourage everyone to take an
hour and watch this video from beginning to end. LaPoint has more
video's which can be watched:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAB0-C-aaTy1wCMbCFlhHmQ

There is a lot of overlap between the various video's, which may be
interesting when going into details, but the main points are all in
the above video.

>From the experiments with steel balls in the "disk", the "coplanar
plane" area around our sun, we can observe that in this plane,  stable
self organizing orbit areas form naturally and that in the center of
the structure, where the sun would be in our solar system and the
nucleus would be in case of an atom, also a natural "self organizing"
mechanism occurs. The latter mechanism explains why an atom nucleus
does not implode into itself because of "gravity", the reason for the
proposal of "weak" and "strong" nuclear forces to balance out this
perceived gravity problem in the standard model.

>From the experiments with plasma, under the influence of the same
magnetic vortices as depicted in Nassim's picture, we can lean that
bright spherical objects form naturally and look exactly like a
miniature sun.

David did a great job in showing how all of this connects together and
similar structures can be found from the sub-atomic all the way up to
galactic scales.


To cut a long story short:

Yes, the consideration that the fundamental (ring) vortex topology is
shaping our solar system appears to hold. However, note that for the
consideration of the planetary orbits, we need to consider the "disc"
area which is present in a (specific) *dual* vortex ring configuration
when studying the planetary orbits.

This "disc" area is flat, like a pancake, when considering the solar
system to be "isolated" in space and in "rest". However, when
considered in a situation whereby the structure "moves" through space
in a direction aligned with the rotation axis of the "disc", the
orbits would become "helical" and thus form a "tornado" type vortex.

In other words: the experiments shown by David LaPoint give insight
into the consideration of the solar system as being "isolated" in
space and at "rest".

Taking it all together:

There is ample experimental evidence which suggests that the
consideration of the "vortex ring", the toroidal rotating structure,
as a fundamental "building block" of Nature is warranted.

>
> In "Mind-blowing Gravitation" I predicted that the velocity [v] is 12278 m/s
> or in v^2:  1,5075532E+08 m2/s2  In the Lorentz Transformation this
> generates the Expansion Constant 8,38689562243644E-10 wich is equal to the
> Gravitational Constant   (6,67407947753269E-11) times 4 PI
> .
> The exact velocity point 12278 m/s lies between Jupiter and Saturn.

First of all, the Lorentz transformation should *not* be used, because
it fundamentally mixes the concepts of "time" and "space" in an
unwarranted manner because of it's inclusion of the speed of light, c.
Dr. C.K. Thornhill described this in more detail mathematically:

http://etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf

It is the Lorentz transform which *demands* a Universally fixed
(constant) speed of light, c, and that is what leads to Einstein's
"curving space" consideration.

However, the speed of light c is very closely related to the
electromagnetic constants:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Electromagnetic_constants
"An option for deriving c that does not directly depend on a
measurement of the propagation of electromagnetic waves is to use the
relation between c and the vacuum permittivity ε0 and vacuum
permeability μ0 established by Maxwell's theory: c^2 = 1/(ε0μ0). The
vacuum permittivity may be determined by measuring the capacitance and
dimensions of a capacitor, whereas the value of the vacuum
permeability is fixed at exactly 4π×10−7 H·m−1 through the definition
of the ampere. Rosa and Dorsey used this method in 1907 to find a
value of 299710±22 km/s."

So, we can define c as follows:

c = sqrt( 1/(ε0μ0) ) = 1/sqrt(ε0μ0)

In this paper, Stowe suggests we can resolve the "anomalous electron
Magnetic Moment" by using this definition:

http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237
"This is accomplished by replacing light speed c with its definition,
√1/ρμ. Note that when using μ o ε o (ρ) the result increases the value
of charge by 1.00116. This is exactly the amount necessary to
eliminate the observed anomalous electron Magnetic Moment."

Now that we understand the origin of the alignment of the direction of
movement of an electron, the direction of an electric current, and the
rotation axis of the magnetic field [B], we understand why there is a
90 degree angle between the direction of an electric current and the
fields lines of the magnetic field [B].

>From this, we can deduce that when we consider large planetary bodies
as spherical objects with a uniformly distributed mass density, we
have to consider both the translational as well as the rotational
velocity at the surface of such a body to be equal to the velocities
of the aether at that surface. If this were not the case, friction
would occur, which would eventually lead to the velocities becoming
equal. Because the planets have been in their orbits for millions of
not billions of years, the assumption that velocity differences
between a planetary body and the aether can be safely ignored when
considering the workings of the solar system is warranted. Note that
this is not the case with the Pioneer space craft, whose trajectory
data shows an anomaly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
"The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect was the observed deviation from
predicted accelerations of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft
after they passed about 20 astronomical units (3×109 km; 2×109 mi) on
their trajectories out of the Solar System. The apparent anomaly was a
matter of tremendous interest for many years, but has been
subsequently explained by an anisotropic radiation pressure caused by
the spacecraft's heat loss.

[...]

By 2012 several papers by different groups, all reanalyzing the
thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft, showed
that a careful accounting of this explains the entire anomaly, and
thus the cause was mundane and did not point to any new phenomena or
need for a different physical paradigm.The most detailed analysis to
date, by some of the original investigators, explicitly looks at two
methods of estimating thermal forces, then states "We find no
statistically significant difference between the two estimates and
conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for,
no anomalous acceleration remains."


While we cannot rule out the "anisotropic radiation pressure caused by
the spacecraft's heat loss" as an explanation for this anomaly, I
consider this explanation to be rather unlikely. As far as I have
understood the paper, they were indeed able to show that the
parameters in their model can be "curve fitted" to the observed data.
So, they have established that the "heat loss" hypothesis cannot be
dismissed given the data we have.

However, it has not been established that the parameter values which
they have determined to "fit" to the data actually match the
parameters of the actual spacecraft. In other words: as far as I can
tell, there is no conclusive evidence that the "heat loss" hypothesis
indeed explains the anomaly satisfactory. It *may*, but there *may* be
better explanations as well, especially if such an explanation would
predict the anomaly beforehand instead of relying on "curve fitting"
in order to match the parameters of the model to the observed data.


All right, so in first approximation, we can consider the "planetary
plane" to be a "spinning" disc of matter in a fluid-like state,
wherein a number of spherical objects are dragged along with the
movement of the fluid, the aether and thus can be used as
*measurement* tools to determine the rotational or angular velocity of
the aether at the surface of the body, whereby both the movement of
the body around the sun as well as around it's own axis should be
considered, and in case of moons, also the movement around it's
planet.

For all these movements and forces, in first approximation, the
centripetal force should be considered to be balanced by the pressure
distribution within the medium. And because we can equate "angular
velocity" to the magnetic vector potential [A] and "pressure" to the
electric scalar potential [V], we can work out a pretty accurate model
for describing the planetary orbits and movements as well as the
electromagnetic fields involved, without having to consider electrical
"charge" (movements) in our model.


Now looking over your book, I noticed that you use the Lorentz factor
and consider that to be a constant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

_That_ is a problem!

Consider how c is defined in terms of electromagnetic parameters:

c = sqrt( 1/(ε0μ0) ) = 1/sqrt(ε0μ0)

IIRC, Epsilon_0, the electric constant, is one and the same as the
mass density of the medium (check in Stowe's work). And since that is
not constant in a "spinning disc" but varies along the radius of the
rotating disc, one cannot consider c to be constant and therefore one
cannot consider the Lorentz factor to be constant when considering
planetary orbits and other phenomena at a solar system scale!

> The Trojans share Jupiter’s orbit, and are always about 60 degrees ahead of,
> or behind, Jupiter. These are the Lagrangian points L4 and L5. At these
> points, the gravity of Jupiter and the Sun balance out, forming a sort of
> gravity island. L4 and L5 are stable, meaning that an asteroid that strays
> from the precise balance point will tend to return to that point.
> https://plus.google.com/collection/07wZf

Asteroids and other objects which leave and re-enter the solar system
may provide interesting data to consider. Within the solar system,
it's trajectory will mostly depend on the projected rotating aether
flow within the solar system. Outside the solar system, this no longer
influences the trajectory, so the trajectory will mostly depend on the
projected aether flow within the galaxy, which is also a "spinning
disc" if I'm not mistaken.

So, it is conceivable that anomalies can be found regarding "asteroid
trajectories" which could provide data for further consideration and
refinement of the model.


>
> Now I wonder if there could be any connection between the "[v] of Arend" and
> the [v] of Mind-blowing gravitation.
> I extended my prediction in Mind-blowing Gravitation with a small part of
> the calculations that I made about the velocity of the planets, the
> equations G.M equals v^2 times D (distance) and the factor v^2/c^2
> If you want to read more about it please follow this link to my dropbox:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/03yrwkf5z7hhprg/Mind-blowing%20Gravitation.%20RMM%20Loeffen%2025%20Nov%202016.pdf?dl=0
>
> This is the latest version. See the "Prediction" page 68.

It would not surprise me if we were to consider the galaxy plane as a
"spinning disc" in the aether, with a certain angular velocity,  we
could gain further insight into this.

Intuitively, I would say that because the velocity you calculated is
based on the assumption of a constant speed of light, the value you
calculated is at best a "characteristic" velocity, related to the
angular velocity of the galaxy disc, and at worst pretty much
arbitrarily.

Best regards,

Arend.