tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post6174949489331855808..comments2023-12-27T00:49:31.972-08:00Comments on Aether Wave Theory: Aether based explanation of dark matterZephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-30024028522845990062013-09-14T15:22:38.250-07:002013-09-14T15:22:38.250-07:00List #1: Gnomes, yousie, elves, veelas, faeries, i...List #1: Gnomes, yousie, elves, veelas, faeries, imps, sprites, unicorns, leprechauns, wights, halflings, merlions, trolls, kelpies, silkies, pixies, gremlins, nymphs, dwarves, kobolds, banshees, paladins, genies, boggarts, timte, goblins, valkyries, dragons, oberons, golems, wraiths, wendigos, buraqs, nagas, undines, cecaelia...<br />List #2: extra-dimensions, scalar field, quintessence, mirror matter, quantum gravitation, axions, dilatons, inflatons, heavy and dark photons, leptoquarks, dark atoms, fat strings and gravitons, magnetic monopoles and anapoles, sterile neutrinos, colorons, fractionally charged particles, chameleon particles, dark fluid and dark baryons, fotinos, gluinos, gauginos, gravitinos and sparticles and WIMPs, SIMPs, MACHOs, RAMBOs, DAEMONs, Randall-Sundrum 5-D phenomena (dark gravitons, K-K gluons a microblack holes.)<br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-59968117994222422392013-08-31T02:52:02.891-07:002013-08-31T02:52:02.891-07:00The behavior of dark matter can be understood quit...The behavior of dark matter can be understood quite well by the parabiosis of scientists and protoscientists (so-called crackpots), which particularly the Web 2.0 technology enabled. The scientists tend to form cohesive group and they tend to repel crackpots from their center. The crackpots are usually individualists and they don't form coalitions - so they're acting in diaspora. They're attracted to scientists and scientific findings though and they tend to surround them. They're particularly sensitive to trends in accidental findings and you can usually find the "dark strings" of crackpots there. In AWT universe the dark matter plays a role of incubator of new galaxies, while the existing clusters of normal matter will gradually dissolve into radiation and neutrinos, which serve as a material for new dark matter clusters. You may observe often, that the elderly scientists often becoming crackpots or they're engaged in suspicious research (like the cold fusion) at least.<br /><br />You may think, that the dark matter is formed with mutually gravitationally repulsive particles (it has opposite gravitational charge to normal matter), so it tends to fill the cosmic space in uniformly thin manner (it represents the "missing antimatter" of the Universe in this way). The proximity of normal matter (which is gravitationally attractive by itself) leads to the concentration of dark matter at the perimeter of massive objects. When three or more massive objects appear at single line, then the dark matter tends to concentrate along this line too, because its mutual repulsion is shielded with said massive objects along this line and it forms the dark matter fibers. Of course, such a behavior of dark matter has nothing to do with MOND theory and it essentially violates it instead.<br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-85475119115111048222012-04-20T08:16:46.094-07:002012-04-20T08:16:46.094-07:00Dark Matter gone missing in many places: a crisis ...<a href="http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/the-dark-matter-crisis/2012-04-19/dark-matter-gone-missing-in-many-places-a-crisis-of-modern-physics?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureBlogs" rel="nofollow">Dark Matter gone missing in many places: a crisis of modern physics?</a>Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-30150090372105481382010-01-30T12:43:00.937-08:002010-01-30T12:43:00.937-08:00Modified gravity as an alternative to dark matter
...<a href="http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.3876v1.pdf" rel="nofollow">Modified gravity as an alternative to dark matter</a><br /><br />TeVeS is one of the best extrapolations of relativity, but it still cannot address well all aspects of dark matter, where its particle character manifests. In AWT dark matter is formed both by space-time deformation, both by particles of matter trapped into it.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-30850630895044505532009-09-15T03:33:50.201-07:002009-09-15T03:33:50.201-07:00Theory of field interactions by T.B.Bon, containin...<a href="http://www.tbbon.net/doc/interaction.pdf" rel="nofollow">Theory of field interactions</a> by T.B.Bon, containing some arithmetic about Doppler effect of "detuned light" spreading through infinite Universe.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-52685786682770235282009-09-10T07:06:00.436-07:002009-09-10T07:06:00.436-07:00In 28 pages review you get a extensive review of t...In <a href="http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/72/9/096901/rpp9_9_096901.pdf" rel="nofollow">28 pages review</a> you get a extensive review of the current theory and understanding of rapidly expanding universe via cosmic acceleration (available online for free within the first month of publication).Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-20177288784719431322009-09-05T00:27:49.461-07:002009-09-05T00:27:49.461-07:00Synopsis:
AWT explains dark matter and omnidirect...<i>Synopsis</i>:<br /><br />AWT explains dark matter and omnidirectional universe expansion by model of <a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/waves/splash-ripples.jpg" rel="nofollow">ripple waves dispersion</a> at water surface.<br /><br />This dispersion decreases the speed of waves from exsintric perspective, which manifests like omni-directional Universe expansion from insintric perspective or like subtle deceleration, which effectively freezes the spreading of light waves, which can be interpreted like spreading of these waves in environment through mass/energy density gradient of vacuum, i.e. like dark matter. Such model leads to testable predictions: for example the deceleration of Pioneer spacecraft is equal to product of Hubble constant and speed of light, which agrees well (+15% error) with value observed.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-53481437390115654022009-07-30T12:43:09.209-07:002009-07-30T12:43:09.209-07:00Fortunately contemporary physics has a number of u...Fortunately contemporary physics has a number of unexplained experiments already, which can be used as a logical evidence of many new theories, not just AWT.<br /><br />It means, no new experiments and formal math are necessary for AWT reasoning, predicate logics and existing observations are enough.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-56824806743745075112009-07-30T12:24:30.799-07:002009-07-30T12:24:30.799-07:00No it wasn't no experimentation, no maths ther...No it wasn't no experimentation, no maths therefore no proof or even for that matter a viable theoryIamCthulhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407790368949371662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-80464164475697930132009-07-30T02:22:50.547-07:002009-07-30T02:22:50.547-07:00/*...wasn't an Aether disproved in the early 1.../*...wasn't an Aether disproved in the early 18th century?...*/<br /><br />Wasn't Aether disproval disproved in early 21 century by me?Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-89338425458457435202009-07-30T02:21:08.689-07:002009-07-30T02:21:08.689-07:00/* ...he seems to have a much better grasp of phys.../* ...he seems to have a much better grasp of physics than you do...*/<br />This is irrelevant to what I'm writing here. If you can refute a single sentence from my whole blog, you're welcomed to do so. <br /><br />Concerning the ElCid textbook example, if I would be convinced, free fall can be solved in quantum mechanics, I'd propose some solution already (<a href="http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0803/0803.0981v1.pdf" rel="nofollow">1</a>,<a href="http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9703/9703055v4.pdf" rel="nofollow">2</a>, <a href="http://jpsj.ipap.jp/cgi-bin/member/getpdf?magazine=JPSJ&volume=68&page=2543" rel="nofollow">3</a>, <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/p464r20m51236l00/" rel="nofollow">4</a>).<br /><br />But as far I know, quantum physics does involve neither gravity force, neither gravity constant in its repository, so such attempt is ridiculous at the first sight from my perspective. You can only do it by combining of equations from different theories, Newtonian dynamics in particular.<br /><br />If you or ElCid didn't realize it, why it should be just my problem in understanding of physics?Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-23455030254247864952009-07-29T17:35:30.257-07:002009-07-29T17:35:30.257-07:00Right, I'm agreeing with El Cid on this one as...Right, I'm agreeing with El Cid on this one as he seems to have a much better grasp of physics than you do. He asked you to solve a simple problem and you couldn't, you spluttered and coughed but there was no solid answer therefore leading me to deduce that you haven't the faintest notion what your talking about please feel free to prove me wrong with mathematics preferably. <br />Besides wasn't an Aether disproved in the early 18th century?IamCthulhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407790368949371662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-10423360169239571992009-07-27T17:13:45.960-07:002009-07-27T17:13:45.960-07:00Ehm,
I win, because I have/use more general insi...Ehm, <br /><br />I win, because I have/use more general insight into situation. If you derive whatever equation, I can demonstrate rather easily, such description has its own limits.<br /><br />I've lost, because my general approach doesn't enable me to model particular situations exactly. I can say, we can use Boltzman gas simulation on strong computer at least conceptually, blah, blah... <br /><br />But I can still cannot demonstrate any exact particular solution in real time without ad-hoced simplifications, which in turn would violate fundamental AWT principles at nonlocal scale.<br /><br />As you can see, whole AWT is about dualities of reciprocal approaches. The intuitive approach diverges from exact approach and you should always decide, which approach is more usefull for you. Common people would revise the results of formal thinkers in intuitive way, while formal thinkers would rectify their intuitive extrapolations by formal models.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-79847423683633617302009-07-27T10:04:49.074-07:002009-07-27T10:04:49.074-07:00Well Zephir,
You win, I've been unable to res...Well Zephir,<br /><br />You win, I've been unable to resolve the problem using QM. But I'm not physicist, I'm the ignorant one. But the problem can be resolved using QM, and any physicist could have solved this trivial problem. Now, why don't you solve it using AWT?Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-90605614355919232942009-07-26T04:21:05.718-07:002009-07-26T04:21:05.718-07:00/*..we can define V(X) = mg X if we want..*/
Sorry.../*..we can define V(X) = mg X if we want..*/<br />Sorry - I know, it's quite natural for you to think in such straightforward way and to mix various theories and theorems into single one - but this equality has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, because quantum mechanics doesn't know, what the "g" is. Not saying, the result is unphysical from QM perspective with respect to insintric vanishing of every QM packet, as you mentioned above.<br /><br />If you get angry so easily, when somebody criticizes you, you should be more careful, when you do the same against someone else. My description of reality cannot dependent on fact, we can derive formal model of it - or not. For example the turbulence, formation of galaxy or density fluctuations inside of gas exists, albeit we still have no formal description of such phenomena. Consecutive logics of formal math is apparently less effective, when parallel systems of many particles are involved.<br /><br />We can still model these phenomena in computer simulation at particle level by cellular automata models, which doesn't require to introduce any physical model with measured constants into description (lattice-Boltzmann models, for example).Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-64375667385849890522009-07-26T01:53:31.707-07:002009-07-26T01:53:31.707-07:00In QM, there is an observable (hermitian operator)...In QM, there is an observable (hermitian operator) called hamiltonian H. In one dimension, the hamiltonian is defined as H = P^2/2m + V(X) where P and X are the momentum operator and the position operator, respectively. We can define V(X) = mg X if we want, not matter if it's functionally equal to the gravitational potential energy in classical physics. But in QM, V(X) is an Hermitian Operator while in CM is a function. The Schrödinger equation is H|vi] = E|vi], where Ei are the eigenvalues and |vi] are the eigenfunctions of the operator H. To obtain Ei and |vi], we must solve a differential equation of type <br />y'' + Ax y = 0. <br />The wave packet can be expresed as<br />|f ]=Sum(i,|vi]). The wave packet represents the state of the particle, in this case the stone. I've considered that stone is punctual, i.e., an elemental particle. In QM, [X] is not the position of the particle (stone), but, we can consider a ball centred at [X], where it's very likely to find the particle. I'd like that you realised that [X] is moved according to the Newton's second law. It can be shown that CM is a limit of the QM.<br /><br />By the way, in this particular case, we don't need to make the approximation:<br /><br />... the wave packet f(x) are much smaller than the distances over which (dV/dx) varies appreciably ...<br /><br />because the equality:<br /><br />[dV/dx] =<br />Int(-Inf,Inf) f*(x)(dV/dx)f(x)dx =<br />(dV/dx)(x=[X]) Int(-Inf,Inf)f*(x)f(x)dx<br />=<br />(dV/dx)(x=[X])<br /><br /> is exact. It's equal to mg.<br /><br />Sorry, If I've insulted you, but I was very angry because you criticised to me. I think you should agree that I've solved the problem using QM.Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-51525811500102713852009-07-25T08:23:45.687-07:002009-07-25T08:23:45.687-07:00When people dating, they refute to know, what they...When people dating, they refute to know, what they are getting into.. <br /><br />This is what the love is called...Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-26868481667197113882009-07-24T18:41:01.571-07:002009-07-24T18:41:01.571-07:00/*...the wave packet f(x) doesn't vanishes in .../*...the wave packet f(x) doesn't vanishes in an interval centered in [X] ...*/<br />This is just an assumption of yours borrowed from classical physics again - but not from QM. By Schrodinger equation such object would vanish in initial speed, corresponding the speed of light. By quantum mechanics such object wouldn't reach it's maximal height - instead of it would create a stable Rydberg orbital in X/2 height, surrounding the whole Earth.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-10505279015802239462009-07-24T18:21:52.090-07:002009-07-24T18:21:52.090-07:00/*...the potential energy for the stone is V = mg[.../*...the potential energy for the stone is V = mg[X] ...*/<br />OK, and from where you get this equation? Isn't it derived from Newton's theory? If yes, why not to use the Newton's theory from its very beginning? Ehrenfest's theorem itself is derived under assumption, Hamiltonian has the same form as in classical physics H = V^2/pm = 1/2m.Sum(i=1)^3 V i^2...<br /><br />In this way, whole your derivation is just a sort of circular reasoning: you're deriving effect of classical physics by using of theorems, which were derived just by using of classical physics approximation (in fact it's just reversed case of classical derivation of Ehrenfest's theorem as given in various textbooks).Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-75965895699829163182009-07-24T10:17:56.881-07:002009-07-24T10:17:56.881-07:00From the Ehrenfest's Theorem, we get:
d [X] /...From the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_theorem" title="" rel="nofollow">Ehrenfest's Theorem</a>, we get:<br /><br />d [X] /dt = 1/m [P]<br />d[P]/ dt = - [grad V] = - [dV/dx]<br /><br />then<br /><br />[P] = m d[X]/dt ; <br />m d^2[X]/dt^2 = - [dV/dx]<br /><br />I'm going to show that [dV/dx] a=a (dV/dx)(x=[X]), indeed:<br /><br />[dV/dx] = <br />Int(-Inf,Inf) f*(x)(dV/dx)f(x)dx a=a<br />(dV/dx)(x=[X]) Int(-Inf,Inf)f*(x)f(x)dx <br />= <br />(dV/dx)(x=[X])<br /><br />This aproximation is valid because the wave packet f(x) are much smaller than the distances over which (dV/dx) varies appreciably. The wave packet f(x) doesn't vanishes in an interval centered in [X]. (dV/dx) doesn't varies appreciably in this interval.<br /><br />then:<br /><br />m d^2[X]/dt^2 = - (dV/dx)(x=[X]) namely the Newton's second law.<br /><br />The potential energy for the stone is V = mg[X] where [X] is the height of the stone.<br /><br />(dV/dx)(x=[X]) = mg; <br />d^2[X]/dt^2 = -g; <br />d[X]/dt = -gt + vo; <br />[X] = -1/2 g t^2 + v0 t + x0<br /><br />d[X]/dt = -9,8t + 20<br />[X] = -1/2 * 9,8 t^2 + 20 t<br /><br />And now the two numbers:<br /><br />1) The time at which the stone reaches its maximum is when d[X]/dt = 0<br /><br />0 = -9,8t +20; t1 = 2,04 s<br /><br />2) The time at which the stone returns to the point from which it was thrown<br /><br />0 = -1/2 * 9,8 t^2 + 20 t; <br />0 = t(20-1/2*9,8t); t2 = 4,08 s.<br /><br /><br />Zephir, you're a true quack.Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-42203694155374527592009-07-24T10:13:39.279-07:002009-07-24T10:13:39.279-07:00I'm going to solve the proposed problem using ...I'm going to solve the proposed problem using QM, with some valid aproximations.<br /><br />We use the following notation:<br /><br />V(x) is the potential enegy<br />|f] is the wave packet for the particle that defines the state of the particle.<br />X is the position operator.<br />P is the momentun operator.<br />V = V(X) is the potential enegy operator.<br />[X] = [f|X|f] is the expectation vaue for the postion operator X in the state |f]. [X] is the center of the wave packet at the instant t.<br />[P] = [f|P|f] is the expectation vaue for the momentun operator P in the state |f]<br /><br />a=a is approximately equal<br />Int(-Inf,Inf) is the improper integral over the real numbers.<br /><br />v0 = 20 m/s is the initial velocity<br />x0 = 0 m is the initial position<br />g = 9,8 m/s^2 is the acceleration due to gravity at sea level (the only parameter that is need to introduce).Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-32600594572749402012009-07-23T11:48:45.158-07:002009-07-23T11:48:45.158-07:00Why I should forget QM? Try to prove first, your a...Why I should forget QM? Try to prove first, your assignation is solvable in this mainstream theory.<br /><br />If it's not, you shouldn't blame AWT from incompetence.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-40462538899279501422009-07-23T09:45:19.774-07:002009-07-23T09:45:19.774-07:00Another chance,
you should forget QM and solve th...Another chance,<br /><br />you should forget QM and solve the problem using deductive reasoning from AWT principles, I only want two numbers and its units of measurement.Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-81379220556499864832009-07-22T13:54:28.853-07:002009-07-22T13:54:28.853-07:00Despite of it, AWT is still the only concept, whic...Despite of it, AWT is still the only concept, which can explain in independent way, why gravity force is indirectly proportional to square of distance (compare the Duillier - Le Sage theory of gravity).Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-84493461586508253692009-07-22T13:46:17.714-07:002009-07-22T13:46:17.714-07:00/*..if AWT is correct, then you could solve a very.../*..if AWT is correct, then you could solve a very simple physics problem...*/ <br /><br />For example quantum mechanics doesn't recognize gravitational constant, so your trivial task would be unsolvable with using of quantum mechanics.<br /><br />Does it mean, quantum mechanics is crackpot theory, if it cannot face such trivial assignation? If not, why just AWT should be?Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com