<div dir="ltr">Arend.<div><br></div><div>You wrote:<br>"Since it is an extention of Stowe's work, it predicts that the</div>elementary particle called electron can be modeled as a single vortex<br>ring which results in an actual understanding of "the quanta" as well<br>as an actual understanding of what "charge" is. It also predicts that<br>the observed cosmic background radiation, resulting in a minimum<br>temperature of about 2.7 K, is related to the characteristic<br>oscillation frequency of the electron".<div>Can you (or Paul Stowe)present a link to a paper where this is explained? I am especially interested in "It also predicts that</div>the observed cosmic background radiation, resulting in a minimum<br>temperature of about 2.7 K, is related to the characteristic<br>oscillation frequency of the electron".<div><br></div><div>I also have a calculation in my book "Con-fusing Gravitation" about the relation between the temperature of CMBR (2.726 K) and a primordial elementary particle. I would like to read Paul Stowes pape about this subject.</div><div><br></div><div>Arend: Thank you! You are doing a great job with this discussion forum about Maxwells equations and especially the discussion about the aether, vortices and gravity.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards.</div><div>Ruud Loeffen.<br><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Op zo 26 apr. 2020 om 21:41 schreef Arend Lammertink <<a href="mailto:lamare@gmail.com">lamare@gmail.com</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 10:16 AM Ilja Schmelzer<br>
<<a href="mailto:ilja.schmelzer@gmail.com" target="_blank">ilja.schmelzer@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> 2020-04-25 18:36 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <<a href="mailto:lamare@gmail.com" target="_blank">lamare@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
> > Today, both relativity as well as the standard model are being pretty<br>
> > much considered as "unalterable givens".<br>
><br>
> The physicists would be happy to find something which is in<br>
> contradiction with the SM, but up to now they have failed to find such<br>
> things. The SM is essentially a phenomenological theory, its<br>
> development was not guided by theoretical ideas but by the experiments<br>
> with all those accelerators.<br>
><br>
> So, there is no good chance for simplification of the SM.<br>
<br>
Well, the idea that there should be only one aether and it's dynamics<br>
can be fully described by LaPlace / Helmholtz, yields a perfectly good<br>
chance for simplification, IMHO, because instead of having the<br>
complexity of having to work with multiple fields of force one all has<br>
to account for, one can work with only one field. That's a<br>
simplification in my book.<br>
<br>
><br>
> > However, we must not "forget their earthly origins" and realize they<br>
> > are products of the human mind and therefore subject to human error.<br>
><br>
> Of course, but the origins are, first of all, the experiments with<br>
> particle colliders.<br>
> And they have quite good agreement between the theoretical computations and<br>
> the results of the experiments.<br>
<br>
So, what does this really reveal?<br>
<br>
It reveals that with the use of wave functions, which are *harmonic*<br>
functions, one is able to describe the physics in such a way that one<br>
can obtain "quite good agreement between the theoretical computations<br>
and the results of the experiments".<br>
<br>
In other words: what has been shown is that harmonic wavefunctions are<br>
sufficient to describe the phenomena.<br>
<br>
><br>
> > I agree with you that "all the SM fields as well as gravity have to be<br>
> > ether fields", but I disagree with the way these fields should be<br>
> > integrated.<br>
><br>
> It works.<br>
<br>
That does not mean it can't be improved upon.<br>
<br>
><br>
> > The fundamental idea is that a medium called aether exists and it<br>
> > behaves like a fluid.<br>
> ><br>
> > A logical consequence thereof is that there is one one medium and<br>
> > therefore only one (set of) field(s) suffices in order to describe<br>
> > it's dynamics. There can be only one!<br>
><br>
> That's nonsense. The ether can have a quite complex structure, thus, a<br>
> lot of different properties beyond its velocity.<br>
<br>
The solutions of the Laplace equation are *all* harmonic functions.<br>
<br>
Plenty of room to construct all the complexity one could ever wish for.<br>
<br>
><br>
> > And therefore, gravity *must* be a force that is the result of either<br>
> > waves trough the aether or a steady state flow within the aether.<br>
><br>
> Gravity must, first of all, described as something which gives results similar<br>
> to GR. Else, you will fail to predict all the results of observations<br>
> and experiments which have been used to test GR.<br>
><br>
> > Tom van Flandern pointed out the following:<br>
><br>
> I doubt that van Flandern has some point. I had take a short look at<br>
> one discussion with him, and it seemed to me that his opponent, a GR<br>
> guy, had the better arguments.<br>
<br>
That still leaves "Dark Matter" and Ron Hatch.<br>
<br>
But you have a point, we should be able to explain "all the results of<br>
observations and experiments which have been used to test GR".<br>
<br>
However, as I pointed out, magnetics play a *very* important role as<br>
well, as shown in the lab by David LaPoint.<br>
<br>
So, it's quite a lot of work to re-analyse all those experiments and<br>
see how the data fits with the new model, which is not even completely<br>
worked out yet.<br>
<br>
><br>
> > And since it cannot be a Herzian electromagnetic wave, the only other<br>
> > possibility left is that it is a longitudinal "Tesla" wave, the kind<br>
> > of wave not currently described by Maxwell's equations, the equations<br>
> > which I've shown to be in violation of elemental math.<br>
><br>
> You have not done such a thing.<br>
<br>
There is no denying that Maxwell's equations violate the elemental<br>
math as defined by Laplace / Helmholtz, because curl E != 0 in<br>
Maxwell.<br>
<br>
This IS mathematical proof, whether you like it or not.<br>
<br>
><br>
> > The propose existence of no less than 2^48 different fields is a<br>
> > violation of the fundamental idea of the existence of a physical<br>
> > aether which behaves like a fluid and therefore there can be only one<br>
> > field, as defined by the Laplace operator and culminating in two the<br>
> > closely related vector flow velocity fields [E] and [B] with a unit of<br>
> > measurement in [m/s].<br>
><br>
> So what? Your one-field ether is unable to make any of the many<br>
> empirical predictions made by the SM. Instead, my ether model gives<br>
> the SM fields.<br>
<br>
As I argued, the bottomline is that SM is (at least partially) based<br>
on *harmonic* wave functions.<br>
<br>
Since *all* harmonic wave functions are solutions to the Laplace<br>
equation, there is no question SM can be revised to fit perfectly well<br>
within our aether model.<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> > Occam demands a model with only one fundamental field definition<br>
> > should be preffered.<br>
><br>
> If it is viable. Your model is not. It does not predict anything<br>
> about the elementary particles at all.<br>
<br>
Since it is an extention of Stowe's work, it predicts that the<br>
elementary particle called electron can be modeled as a single vortex<br>
ring which results in an actual understanding of "the quanta" as well<br>
as an actual understanding of what "charge" is. It also predicts that<br>
the observed cosmic background radiation, resulting in a minimum<br>
temperature of about 2.7 K, is related to the characteristic<br>
oscillation frequency of the electron.<br>
<br>
Whatever you may think of that, one cannot maintain it does not<br>
"predict anything about the elementary particles at all".<br>
<br>
><br>
> > Yep, we need it to obtain the elementary particles from the waves of the<br>
> > ether.<br>
><br>
> This is not a problem at all, because it is standard QT in quantum<br>
> condensed matter theory. There are usual sound waves and the quantum<br>
> effects (discrete energy levels) give energies similar to those<br>
> associated with particles. These quasi-particles are named "phonons".<br>
><br>
> That means there is nothing to do but to apply standard quantum<br>
> condensed matter theory.<br>
<br>
Again, sound waves are harmonic waves. So, there is no reason this<br>
could not also be revised and realigned to our medium model, our<br>
aether theory, which allows *all* harmonic functions as a solution.<br>
<br>
><br>
> > And we need to explain what "charge" is as well. It is not hard to see<br>
> > that vortex rings can be combined into complex structures, which share<br>
> > attributes both associated with waves as well as particles:<br>
><br>
> Such vortex rings are hardly sufficient to give all the SM gauge fields.<br>
<br>
As shown, these gauge fields do not result in any change of the real<br>
fields of force they are defined to hook into, and therefore they have<br>
no physicall effect at all, that is, not along the way they are<br>
currently hooked up into the model.<br>
<br>
At the end of the day, there is no reason why the SM could not be<br>
realigned to our medium model, our aether model.<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> >> Universality: The old ether was a medium for the electromagnetic field. It<br>
> >> was assumed, that, except the ether, there are also other things in the<br>
> >> universe, like usual matter and gravity.<br>
> ><br>
> > Yep, and that's why the old ether model has to go. There are no other<br>
> > things in the universe but the aether, so things like matter and<br>
> > gravity *must* be described as the result of some kind of phenomena<br>
> > that can occur in a fluid-like medium, like waves and vortices.<br>
><br>
> Why you think the ether has to be fluid is beyond me.<br>
><br>
> > There _can_ be only one.<br>
><br>
> No, there can be many, and there are many in my model.<br>
<br>
Well, yes, one can invent many, but that does not mean doing so helps<br>
in increasing your understanding of what's actually going on.<br>
<br>
We know there is a medium and it behaves like a fluid. All one<br>
accomplishes by introducing additional fields is that one makes thinks<br>
unnecessarily complicated.<br>
<br>
That's just not a good idea in my book.<br>
<br>
><br>
> >>Length contraction caused by the ether: As well, ether effects lead to a<br>
> >> contraction of moving rulers. Thus, relativistic effects are described in<br>
> >> a way similar to the Lorentz ether.<br>
> ><br>
> > Mostly agree, as long as it's clear that the Lorentz transform should<br>
> > not be applied, no matter what. We *have* to stick to absolute space<br>
> > and therefore Galilean coordinate transforms.<br>
><br>
> Sorry, but you are free to use whatever coordinates you like. It is<br>
> elementary differential geometry to rewrite all the equations in other<br>
> coordinates.<br>
><br>
> BTW, in my ether theory there is absolute rest, thus, no Galilean<br>
> invariance too.<br>
<br>
How do you intend to explain the MM experiment from that then?<br>
<br>
><br>
> >> Speed of light as the speed of sound of the medium: The speed of light in<br>
> >> the vacuum is the characteristic speed of waves in this medium, similar to<br>
> >> the speed of sound.<br>
> ><br>
> > Disagree. Besides the familiar "transverse" wave, there is also a<br>
> > longitudinal wave, which propagates at either pi/2 or sqrt(3) times<br>
> > the speed of light. Speed of light is not a universal constant, but<br>
> > follows from the local properties of the aether. Hence no application<br>
> > of the Lorentz transform.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> >> > In fluid dynamics, we have both incompressible flow as well as<br>
> >> > irrotational flow:<br>
> >><br>
> >> And we also have flows which are neither incompressible nor irrotational.<br>
> ><br>
> > Those are theoretical simplifications that have their place in theory,<br>
> > but not in reality. No incompressible fluids nor materials exist.<br>
> ><br>
> > One cannot have something physical that is rotating and also has zero<br>
> > curl/rotation. See:<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex#Irrotational_vortices" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex#Irrotational_vortices</a><br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> >> The fluid dynamic model of the ether has the velocity of the ether<br>
> >> defined by the gravitational field as v^i = g^{0i}/g^{00}. It is<br>
> >> neither incompressible nor irrotational.<br>
> >><br>
> >> > 𝐀=∇×𝐅<br>
> >> > Φ= ∇⋅𝐅<br>
> >><br>
> >> ???????<br>
> ><br>
> > All I did was to take the terms one finds in the Laplacian, elemental<br>
> > math, wrote them out and labeled them as follows:<br>
> ><br>
> > -:-<br>
> > The Laplacian IS the second order spatial derivative<br>
> > of ANY given vector funtion 𝐅, the 3D curvature if you will, and is<br>
> > given by the identity:<br>
> ><br>
> > ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅)<br>
> ><br>
> > The terms in this identity can be written out as follows:<br>
> ><br>
> > 𝐀=∇×𝐅<br>
> > Φ= ∇⋅𝐅<br>
> > 𝐁=∇×𝐀=∇×(∇×𝐅)<br>
> > 𝗘=−∇Φ= −∇(∇⋅𝐅)<br>
> ><br>
> > And because of vector identities, one can also write:<br>
> ><br>
> > ∇×𝗘= 0<br>
> > ∇⋅𝐁= 0<br>
> > -:-<br>
> ><br>
> > This math establishes a Helmholtz decompositon of any given vector field 𝐅:<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition</a><br>
><br>
> The formula given there for the decomposition is<br>
><br>
> F =-\nabla \Phi + \nabla x A<br>
><br>
> means<br>
><br>
> \nabla F = -\nabla^2 \Phi instead of \nabla F = \Phi<br>
<br>
"The formula given there for the decomposition is<br>
<br>
𝐅 = −∇Φ + ∇×𝐀<br>
<br>
means<br>
<br>
∇𝐅 = - ∇²Φ instead of ∇𝐅=Φ"<br>
<br>
What is given is:<br>
<br>
∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = ∇(Φ) - ∇×(𝐀)<br>
<br>
What Helmholtz says is:<br>
<br>
A vector field 𝐅 exists such that:<br>
𝐅 = −∇Φ + ∇×𝐀<br>
<br>
And what I'm saying is that, apart from the negation, this vector<br>
field 𝐅 is given by:<br>
<br>
∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = ∇(Φ) - ∇×(𝐀)<br>
<br>
<br>
And dimensional analysis of the FD case, as I've shown, reveals that<br>
the unique solution to this equation is:<br>
<br>
𝐅 = [0], the null vector.<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> >> In other words, you want to speculate about some ether theory, but<br>
> >> have not even fully worked out formulas for this. Even if successful, the<br>
> >> result would be worthless because a viable ether theory would have to<br>
> >> cover the whole SM together with gravity, and not only the EM field.<br>
> ><br>
> > This is established by modelling the gravitational force as<br>
> > experienced on the surface of a planet as being caused by longitudinal<br>
> > waves.<br>
><br>
> You cannot establish something by modeling. You can construct some model.<br>
> Then, this model makes some predictions. Then you have to compare the<br>
> predictions with observation and if this fails, the model has to be thrown away.<br>
<br>
All in all it's just a process of debugging. First find the bug, then<br>
update your model accordingly and then compare the predictions with<br>
observations. If this fails, find the bug and continue.<br>
<br>
There is no question that a bug that has been left unnoticed for over<br>
150 years takes some time to debug and requires quite a lot of<br>
refactoring in/of the rest of the model.<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> > And it can be shown in the laboratory that the other two so-called<br>
> > "fundamental interactions" can also be fully accounted for by EM<br>
> > forces:<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siMFfNhn6dk" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siMFfNhn6dk</a><br>
> > Don't mind the narrator too much, focus on what is being shown.<br>
><br>
> Nonsense. What is shown are nice pictures at best, they cannot tell us anything<br>
> if not supported by theoretical considerations.<br>
<br>
What is shown is that steel balls form geometric structures under the<br>
influence of a magnetic field under certain conditions and that these<br>
patterns match to a photo that has been shown and is claimed to be an<br>
image of an atom nucleus.<br>
<br>
There is no denying that these seem to match. What that means is up<br>
for debate, but it is a fact that the picture shown matches the<br>
patterns shown in the experiment.<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> > Again, the fundamental idea is that there is only one aether and<br>
> > therefore only one field as defined by the fundamental theorem of<br>
> > vector calculus.<br>
> ><br>
> > This is not speculation, this is logical thinking.<br>
><br>
> No. This is simply a much too primitive model which fails to predict anything<br>
> about the observations made in particle accelerators.<br>
<br>
No shit, Sherlock!<br>
<br>
What we have is a model for the medium and the argument that a<br>
particle model should be built on top of it.<br>
<br>
Of course the medium model itself cannot predict anything about the<br>
observations made in particle accelerators. We cannot do that without<br>
a particle model.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Ruud Loeffen</b></font><div><a href="http://www.human-DNA.org" style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">http://www.human-DNA.org</a><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>