[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 20, Issue 2

Sat Nov 24 19:19:19 CET 2018

Hi Ilja,

    Okay, yes, I thought maybe you were favouring the idea of a
compressible ether. I thought that in the beginning too, since it would be
easy to explain the speeding up of light higher in a gravitational gradient
as being due to a change in density, but then there is the problem of EM
being a transverse wave. I will point out though that the electromagnetic
ether of Maxwell was conceived of as being incompressible, I scrambled
around looking for the reference for that and found it is on page 160 of "On
Faraday's Lines of force.
<https://books.google.ca/books?id=Zbc4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=%22The+substance+here+treated+of+must+not+be+assumed+to+possess+any+of+the+properties+of+ordinary+fluids%22&source=bl&ots=rl6neDXFMv&sig=W284jyP60HZcAJRqWJamHHk1Ptk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9vMXhzO3eAhWFq1kKHe36BZ4Q6AEwAXoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22The%20substance%20here%20treated%20of%20must%20not%20be%20assumed%20to%20possess%20any%20of%20the%20properties%20of%20ordinary%20fluids%22&f=false>
"
I presume this is because a compressible ether would support longitudinal
sound waves, whereas in reality electromagnetic waves are transverse.
Conceptually, Maxwell's ether has an uncanny resemblance to a superfluid,
and superfluids can support transverse waves via Tkachenko (Transverse)
Modes
<https://books.google.ca/books?id=uw6DZK7BA1EC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=superfluid+%22speed+of+sound%22+%22transverse+waves%22&source=web&ots=O2cSqaMOQ6&sig=QgnLGl0YL215EnRNW5lQ6RBq28A&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result%23PPA24,M1#v=onepage&q=superfluid%20%22speed%20of%20sound%22%20%22transverse%20waves%22&f=false>
. This also dovetails really well with Maxwell's idea that magnetic lines
of force are vortex filaments in an ideal fluid, which are very similar to
the vortex filaments induced by motion in a superfluid. So if it walks like
a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck, isn't it? Perhaps the
change in the speed of light in a gravitational gradient might be explained
as a change in pressure rather than density??

Doug

On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 2:18 AM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The ether has density, velocity and pressure tensor, with well-defined
> formulas how they connect to the gravitational field (the metric).
>
> These are the formulas g^00 sqrt{-g} = rho and so on.  So, they have
> all non-constant values. Once the density is not constant, it means a
> compressible ether.
>
> Then, it follows classical equations for condensed matter theory,
> namely continuity and Euler equations.  The theory which is equivalent
> to the Einstein equations is classical, thus, no quantum effects like
> superfluidity or Bose-Einstein condensates.
>
> In the General Lorentz Ether, there is also a Lagrange formalism for
> the ether. This makes the equations a little bit different from the
> Einstein equations. They can be recovered in some limit, but in this
> limit the Lagrange formalism degenerates, and the conservation laws
> (continuity and Euler equations) are no longer Euler-Lagrange
> equations.
>
> A Lagrange formalism is seldom used in condensed matter theory,
> because for irreversible effects (like diffusion, in particular of
> temperature) there is no nice Lagrange formalism.  So, roughly, only
> elastic effects are considered.
>
> 2018-11-24 4:20 GMT+01:00, Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com>:
> > Hi Ilja,
> >     Yes, I agree, the best approach is using a form of Lorentzian ether
> > theory. I did take a quick look at your webpage - lots of math : )  Have
> > you considered what you believe ether to be physically? i.e. a
> > non-compressible or compressible fluid, or something more akin to a
> > Bose-Einstein condensate or superfluid, or the ether of Maxwell, or
> > something else? I ask this because you mention ether density and
> velocity,
> > but how ether moves and whether its density varies should be different
> for
> > some of those possibilities, so just curious where your theory stands on
> > that.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 4:52 PM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Doug,
> >>
> >> The best way to understand relativity remains the classical Lorentz
> >> ether.
> >>
> >> Moving clocks go slower, and moving bodies, including rulers used to
> >> measure distances,
> >> are compressed in the direction of motion. That's all.  Space and time
> >> are the same as in Newtonian theory.
> >>
> >> The same can be extended to gravity.  All that changes is that the
> >> Lorentz ether is no longer homogeneous, and is no longer at rest, but
> >> moves, and has a pressure tensor. Density, velocity and the pressure
> >> tensor define the gravitational field.  This leads to additional
> >> effects, in particular clocks go also slower where the ether density
> >> is higher, and the pressure additionally deforms the rulers.
> >>
> >> That the Lorentz ether can be easily extended to gravity is not
> >> well-known, see http://ilja-schmelzer.de/ether for the details.
> >>
> >> Within the Lorentz ether, it is easy to see that there do not appear
> >> any contradictions. The Newtonian background remains unchanged, and
> >> that distorted clocks and rulers define a non-Euclidean geometry is a
> >> trivitiality.  Try to measure pi with a usual metallic ruler if the
> >> center is hotter than the circumference so that the ruler becomes
> >> longer if you measure the diameter.
> >>
> >> All the conceptual problems with SR and GR follow from the postivistic
> >> idea that once we cannot measure something it does not exist.  So,
> >> once our clocks and rulers are distorted, absolute space and time do
> >> not exist.
> >>
> >> 2018-11-23 12:00 GMT+01:00, physics-request at tuks.nl <
> >> physics-request at tuks.nl>:
> >> > The first is Einstein's redefinition of time as "that which a clock
> >> > measures" which differs in a dramatic way from the more classical
> >> > definition of time as being "the duration between events" or "the
> >> duration
> >> > of an event".
> >>
> >> > Further, the idea that the number of ticks on the
> >> > clock defines how far you have progressed into the future would also
> be
> >> > wrong according to Einstein, since all the clocks would have different
> >> > ticks even though the share the same present at the start and finish.
> >> > Why
> >> > are these contradictions not fatal to Einstein's theory?
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Physics mailing list
> >> Physics at tuks.nl
> >> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181124/a0b355c8/attachment.html>