- Dear Jack and everyone

> > I was trained as mathematician, and use the ordinary mathematical ideas

That's the kind of question you just have to make the "most reasonable"

> > of ideas of length and time as if these are both absolute parameters.

>

> There's a problem with this notion. Say you walk into a room and

> it seems to be growing. I.e., all lengths in the room remain

> constant with respect to all the other lengths making up the room, but

> to you the lengths of the room appear to be growing. The question

> is, is the room growing or are you shrinking.

decision on!

My physics is all concerned at root with what happens on our own scale, with

the ambition to extend it to a scale where I can help explain how

semiconductors really work, how photosynthesis really works, etc.. The

idea is that other more practical people can use my way of seeing things as

a framework when they try and find new cleaner and renewable sources of

energy etc.. Also, I very much want to save future generations of physics

students from having to twist their minds around Einstein's notions, which

are largely wrong or irrelevant.

> Then consider that all you need to define a ruler are two distinguishable

reasoning.

> points. There are some interesting consequences to this line of

To me this seems a problem for philosophers, not physicists.

> > I think that there is no problem with time, which really can be

Agreed.

> > defined as absolute apart from scale

> > and origin. Space is only a little more difficult. I think there is

> > always a preferred frame, relevant to the study in question. It is

> > not always obvious what this frame is, though.

>

> The choice is IMO, arbitrary. But some choices make the math and

> reasoning simpler. The preference, I think is ours, rather than natures.

> > Despite the fact that aether may be

See my phi-waves paper (there's a link from the front page of my site). The

> > drifting across a set of "particles", this may not be the best

> > frame to work in. All this means is that you have to think

> > about it and allow for motion of the aether.

>

> How are particles and the aether different?

particles are wave centres or groups of them. They are formed of aether,

which can either flow right through them or move with them. I think it

probably only moves with them to any significant extent when they are part

of a large body. Quite how large remains to be discovered.

Dayton Miller's experiments seem to tell us that a temperature-controlled

container is likely to screen out most of the aether wind. My

interpretation is that the wind has gradually been brought to a halt by

interactions with phi-waves. Where this has the effect of pushing the

phi-wave amplitudes up beyond a threshold, you could find extra wave centres

being formed, i.e. the wind could be converted to a very weak "electric

current".

Cheers

Caroline

c.h.thompson@...

http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat - Re Einstein's GR:
> Does Gerber's paper present any notion of light bending, time slowing or

So far as I know, all it assumes is that gravity travels at speed c. I

> gravitational red-shift?

don't think the other matters come into the problem (the perihelion changes

of Mercury).

But that, of course, was one of Einstein's very worst errors, the idea that

time slowed! Clocks may well run slow in certain conditions (though it is

pretty certain that they will not obey Einstein's rule as it will all depend

on their mechanism. It is quite obvious that a pendulum will behave

differently from an atomic clock, for instance.)

> The practical problem of using electrons as the endpoints of a ruler is a

I don't! I'm interested in constructing a realistic picture of the

> also a technical one. (And a distraction.) The point is that a ruler is

> line-like,

> something bound by two points. The question is, how do you decide

> (or should you), which two points in the universe define your ruler.

quantum-level world. It does not matter to me how I might in theory measure

it. In practice no measurements whatsoever are possible.

> How do you know if anything is in motion? (or not?!)

You don't, but you usually know something that is sufficient for the problem

in question. Where diffculties arise is when you try and generalise. Real

problems only require you to know relative motion. A lot of them only

require the relative motion of objects that are about to collide and so are

in the same location. Instead of asking how I know if ANYTHING is in

motion, ask me some specific question and let's see if there's a problem.

> > > Here's a question for you. How is it that a wave propagates?

See the text books! It's all to do with elastic forces and inertia and the

> >

> > If you take a piece of string, the method of propagation, whether of

> > transverse of longitudinal waves, is quite well understood.

>

> And this is understood in terms of ...?

oscillations of the individual elements into which you divide the thing. I

can't remember the details. The speed of the wave seems to drop out of the

calculations by magic!

> > If you take my phi-waves, though, the mechanism is

I've already spent enough sleepless nights, thank you! I've spent much time

> > unknown. I take the fact of their propagation as given.

>

> Lots -- probably most -- people accept this as a given.

> But, if you understood this and could clearly explain it

> you could awaken quite a few sleepy heads.

pondering on the details of how the aether works and this, as many before me

have found to their cost, is exhausting and (in all cases to date?) futile.

It is only when I actively decided to abandon this quest that I suddenly

seemed to make progress. Perhaps when I've catalogued how all the phenomena

of modern technology work in terms of phi-waves it will become obvious what

the next layer down is like ...

Cheers

Caroline