[Marco]

Hallo @JoP,

what do you mean for particle?

In phisics a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties, such as volume, density, or mass.

A particle of a fluid can also be defined inside an omogeneous fluid.

A drop is a good example of particle even if liquid.

You define yourself that “Ether is ultra-small and ultra-fast particles” but being not measurable how do you know they are solid, liquid, gas, plasma or other?

You can critics my link because represents reality only in 2D instead of 3D o 4D, but you can’t think that a liquid particle have a different behaviour then solid in this experiment.

I share your model of ether and I think there are not diffetence if ether particles are solid, liquid or plasma because their effect is due to quantity of motion, not to its phase or state.

The reason escape me for thinking ether particles are solid?

The only reason I think is only for semplicity, but rain is also a good example.

See you soon,

best regards Ing__mm

[Marco]

Hi Jan,

thanks for your explaination.

I think your work is an important theorical work, and I think it will be possible to apply it on computer simulation, but algebraically talking it will be difficult to leave magnetic theory.

Best regards and good work

Ing Marco M

[Marco]

Hallo Jerry and Erik,

I want to show you a little video in wich is displayed the beheaviour between wave and particle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ

At minute 1:50 there is the 2 silt experiment done with a wather drop on his standing wave:

behaviour of drop is like a particle (elektron) and wave is like aether.

I think elektron is like an aether ruffle, like the drop of wather, made of wather as the wave, but inclosed in a membrane and separate from the wather wave.

Drop is separate from wave while his velocity il low, when his velocity became fast respect to sound velocity of wather the drop return in wather but wave travel at sound speed.

If the wave hits an obtacle (protons or nucleus) drop can resurface creating a new standing wave.

I hope I have been clear enough.

Best regards Ing__mm

[Marco]

Hallo @JoP ,

I like your theory, but sometimes it is hard for me to understand and follow your explantion:

you wrote “At r(AU)=1 escape velocity from Sun is 1+-1.41×10^-4. Changing as inverse square root of r(AU).”

It’s hard to understand that it’s the ratio with c (1.41×10^-4 = 42.3/300’000).

I would have written ” [1+-(1.41×10^-4) /√r(AU)]*c “, in one formula…

I’m doing your reasoning and I understand what you mean, but if you want to be heard from others you must be as clear as possible.

You are doing a great job, but someone can’t appreciate because it seem harder then it is.

Best regard Ing.MM

[Marco]

I want to congratulate you @JoP for this great explanation, it is alligned on my model of gravity.

We differ only for the different transfert of energy and amount of motion between eather and matter.

Your approach is absorbtion and my approach is fluid dynamics like.

Great job

Ing. MM

• This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  Marco.

[Marco]

Hallo @JoP ,

I agree your approach to unify SRT and GRT, I haden’t noticed this relation 👍.

I don’t understand one thing:

why you consider the v(orb)= 0.3 km/s on earth ?

The other value is coherent with the real measurable values, but I don’t know what velocity you consider on earth…

Best regards

Ing. MM

[Marco]

A little correction…😉

There is a “comma” error:

Escape velocty of Sun at 1 UA is 42 Km/s instaed of 4.2 Km/s

[Marco]

Hallo @JoP ,👍

I try to explain better my idea:

electrons and aether interact, and electron and nucleus interact only through aether,

electrons and aether can exchange energy with continuity, and also nucleus and aether can exchange energy with continuity.

electrons exchange energy only with aether, so when they loose energy, aether acquire exatly that energy and vice versa.

Aether is the medium to exchange energy between Nucleus and electrons.

This is a dynamic system formed by 3 elements: Nucleus — aether — electrons

The quanta of energy is due at the interaction between electron and nucleus, not to aether (photons).

Why is it quantized?

There are some condition for wich a charge do not radiate, look at this link:

https://skullsinthestars.com/2008/06/19/invisibility-physics-schotts-radiationless-orbits/

The presence of the system Nucleus — aether — electrons warp aether field and create stability area in wich electron rotate but create only evanescent wave in the aether, thus, not radiate and not drop toward nucleus that rotate but not radiate too.

Aether allows electron and nucleus to rotate in opposition of phase only for certain value of frequency, when this not happens electrons slow down or accelerate until find the right frequency.

I think there are no radiation also when charge move at same velocity of aether.

Best regards

Ing.__MM

[Marco]

@JoP and all

I don’t know when Bohr said “the electron can switch off the radiation when it is in a stable orbit” but also when it is in an unstable orbit, it emitt only the energy for going in a stable orbit, are you agree with me?

The mean force on electrons is inversely proportional to square of distance and it’s never change sign and it drop inexorably into nucleus.

I don’t think electrons can switch its radiation, but in analogy with Bohm pilot wave, I think aether can warp (modulate) force field around nucleus.

This modulation can create different zone of stability, with possibility of stable path without loosing energy, or low stable areas that, with little disturbance, brings electron toward more stable zone.

If aether behaviur is like fluid this is equivalent to a radial stationary wave on the surface of vortex (inversely proportional to square of distance).

I said this because I’m a controllist engineer and I study a lot in stability systems.

Are you agree with me at least 61.8034% ?

(why this %? It’s the Golden ratio value and statistically is a significative value)

Best regards

Ing.___MM

[Marco]

Electrons are better in communication then CNPS members because are more and more then CNPS members 😄.

[Marco]

Hallo @Andy ,

your logic is impeccable, but for motion, particels need at least 2 dimensions.

(I write this also for me, for review)

Motion in 1D is allowed (without collisions) only if all element move at the same velocity:

we can’t swap no element with another (without overlap), there is no degrees of freedom,

in 2D, motion is allowed in 1 direction (in the plane) and in 1 circular (or elliptic) mode around a point in the plane:

we can move the circles freely because if compacted at 60° they release 13.4% of space

and can create a “circle free” space.

in 3D, motion is allowed in 1 direction (in the space) and in 1 spheric (or elliptic) mode around a point in the space:

we can move the sphere freely, also here 13.4% for every dimension over the first,

with a 25% of “sphere free” space

in 4D, motion is allowed in 1 direction (in the 4D_sp) and in 1 toroidal (or elliptic) mode around a point in the 4D_sp:

we can move the torus freely, with more then 13.4% for every dimension over the first

= 35% of “torus free” space.

After these, in dimension 7 and 23 the n-spere becames extra compact with a lot of free space…

After said that, I don’t believe in Big Beng theory but in continuity of universe 👍.

Best regards

Ing. MM

[Marco]

Hallo @Andy ,

Scrivo in italiano perche’ faccio prima, spero tu riesca a tradurre…

hai fatto un bellissimo discorso, ma come dici tu stesso, hai poca dimestichezza con la fisica e la matematica.

Le idee intuitive di ciascuno, a volte, si scontrano con la REALTA’ e la fisica e la matematica sono proprio quegli strumenti che occorrono per avere conferma o meno delle proprie (o altrui) idee.

Nei discorsi fatti nei post si capisce che non e’ la matematica a essere falsa, ma e’ l’interpretazione che viene data ai risultati che fornisce che puo’ essere falsificata.

La geometria, invecie, non puo’ essere falsificata perche’ non si possono applicare i teoremi di incompletezza di Goedel (qui si va su teoremi di matematica avanzata…) quindi la geometria ha una potenzialita’ superiore alla matematica per spiegare i fenomeni fisici.

La tua interpretazione intuitiva di geometria ti porta a semplificare troppo quella che e’ la realta’ fisica, mescoli le 3 dimensioni ed il tempo senza dargli una rappresentazione univoca e ripetibile e questo porta ad una indeterminazione di fondo nella tua rappresentazione.

Ci sono persone in questo gruppo che hanno alte competenze di matematica e fisica e si scambiano informazioni con un grosso background condiviso, pur essendo dissidenti e non allineati con la scienzah ufficiale.

Per gli altri che NON hanno lo stesso background, possono sembrare discussioni inutili ma solo perche’ non hanno le basi comuni per capire il nocciolo della questione.

Per farti alcuni esempi, la meccanica, fino a Newton e’ condivisa praticamente da tutti, per l’elettromagnetismo si arriva fino all’esperimento di Michaelson-Morley, per la Fisica atomica le divisioni iniziano con Plank…

i background sono molto ampi e superano il 90% di cio’ che si conosce, le differenze sono sul restante 10% o meno…

Se mi permetti vorrei darti 2 informazioni riguardo la geometria (senza entrare nel merito della dimensione temporale):

1) la dimensione minima (con misura NON nulla) dello spazio e’ rappresentata dalla retta che ha dimensione 1 e possimo rappresentare qualsiasi punto su essa in corrispondenza biunivoca con i numeri Reali (R).

La retta non occupa tutto lo spazio e se vogliamo rappresentarlo tutto occorre aumentare le dimensioni.

2) aggiungendo una dimensione (ortogonale per semplicita’) otteniamo lo spazio a 2 dimensioni (una superficie) e questo spazio, non e’ semplicemente l’unione di 1 dimensione + 1 altra dimensione, ma ha caratteristiche ulteriori che non c’erano prima.

ci sono delle nuove grandezze che con 1 dimensione non erano definite:

Una nuova grandezza la chiamiamo “area”,

un’altra grandezza la chiamiamo “angolo”.

Questo spazio a 2 dimensioni e’ in corrispondenza biunivoca con il campo dei numeri Complessi (C =x +i*y).

Se aumentiamo ulteriormente le dimensioni a 3, possiamo trovare (ed e’ definita univocamente) QUELLA dimensione che e’ ortogonale alle 2 definite in precedenza.

Ovviamente le scelte possono essere tante per le dimensioni ortogonali ad ognuna delle singole dimensioni, ma SOLO UNA e’ ortogonale a entrambe: e’ questo caratterizza lo spazio a 3 dimensioni che conosciamo.

Le altre dimensioni che possiamo considerare (compreso il tempo) faranno riferimento a questa “terna” di dimensioni reciprocamente ortogonali.

Non e’ la mia specializzazione, e questa e’ una estrema sintesi di alcuni punti comuni per “addetti a ragionamenti razionali”.

Le critiche sono sempre ammesse, non mi offendo, era per dare un aiuto per comprendere argomenti distanti dalla nostra formazione.

(a me capita in certe discussioni di MQ di capire relativamente poco perche’ mi mancano alcune basi…)

Cordiali saluti

Ing. MM

[Marco]

Hallo @jajo8088 & @JoP and all

I read your paper and I think it is right: magnetism derive from charge motion, but mathematics calculus is much complicated without using magnetic law.

There are integrals made on retarded time, every variable we use must be writed with a long complex formula😥…🤯.

For me is an important theorical concept but it is not practically usable.

For doing a mathematical comparison “Magnetism laws” is like “Pitagora’s theorem” that are simply to use but PT isn’t a postulate, but is demonstrate mathematicly in hundreds of different modes.

I think also, is possible to demonstrate that “retarded potential” is mathematecly equivalent with “static” aether theory because retard of time is caused by light travel thrugh medium.

Best regards

Ing. MM

[Marco]

This image si OK, but is not visualized, you can download it and visualize on your device.

[Marco]

I don’t’ know why but writing links, this site add a copy of it, and I must delete the second copy of it for let it work.

Good afternoon

Ing. MM