[Marco]

Hallo @JoP ,

I was a littel busy because my chief was positiv to covid19 and I had to replace it…

I think we have the same idea of aether but different behaviour of exchanging motion and energy.

I re-read your article and I understand better what you mean for aberration (in gravity field, right?) but I don’t find where you connect “absorbing ether particles” and “aberration”.

The only difference between our model is in my next image.

[Marco]

Consider 2 aetherons (green & light blu arrow) moving near a planet, and these, for Coanda effect, are deflected (in this example) of 90° around it.

the effect of these aetherons can be the same of 2 aetherons absorbed by planet.

They such planet while they turn 90° then they pull away in opposite direction with null effect ortogonally initial direction.

This excess of aetherons near surface of planet can expain the Allais anomaly you have alredy argue in your “http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=About_the_Wang_Eclipse,_Part_4”.

Best regards

Ing. MM

• This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by  Marco.

[Marco]

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/172I5Q9F1OIDn_vbaVBD20RVdMEtRscFK

[Marco]

[Marco]

• This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by  Marco.

[Marco]

Hallo @Andy ,

I translate in Italian your post because I can’t always understand the nuances of English, so I appreciated it.

I like your philosophy of searching Truth, but there are something I want point you:

Cantor invented a theory of infinity for explain mathematically some phenomena and this is not wrong, but someone (Hilbert) trasform this concept to “mathematics IS the phenomenon”.

Mathematics is a tool, but someone think it is reality…

the same relation in mathematics explain a lot of phisics phenomena, for example a linear relation explain the space walked space in a ride, but also the mass (fuel) reduction in a rocket during blastoff.

How can the same mathematic expression explain 2 different phenomen if it is reality?

The mathematical model replace the phisical model of reality and the results is congluent with reality, with particular attenction at singular point

when the value of a variable became infinity (that is not phisicly possible).

We need another model for explain beheaviur near singularity.

Scientists use the Occam razor for semplify reality, but realiry don’t use Occam razor, so, reality is more complex of our model of reality.

Olbers’ Paradox is not a big paradox if you consider that firs star we find is the Sun and it is a little distance respect mean distance between two stars,

and mean value of radiation could be 2.7°K like Cosmic microwave background…

If Kronecker claimed “god made the integers; all else is the work of man.” I can say “god made anything.”, integers, fractional, immaginary, infinity are mathematicals tool for understanding better reality.

I think you semplify too much reality in your vision of binary relation [0] &/or [1], reality is more complex than binary, but not even how they want us to believe.

Best regards,

Ing. MM

[Marco]

I think this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox can give you some inputs of explantion on similar problems.

Regards ___ Ing MM

[Marco]

Hallo Jan Olof,

thank you for your reference I like it very much.

I answered on your email too.

Have a nice Sunday

Ing___MM

[Marco]

Hallo John,

I was very busy with my work, excuse me for later answer… 😢

I take some days to think how answer to your question on need of fluid mechanics.

We agree on very seldom interact with matter, but we have a different view on energy in the in interraction to generate force/acceleration on matter.

I gave a numerical esteem of that in my old post:

https://naturalphilosophy.org/groups/aether-theory/forum/discussions/the-falling-ether/page/1/#post-1554

I understand finite energy of etherons at c velocity, but you never give a value of that energy.

I think you think it’s negligible, but you should argue this, elsewhere how matter acquire energy, do you think?

With fluid mechanics like actions forces is generated by pressure/depression who need minor energy because it is intrinsecly generated by movement.

I mus go to lunch, good afternoon.

Ing MM

[Marco]

Good morning John,

you say ether particles move with speed c: how much energy have each particle?

If you assume a finite energy you must assume a null mass of that particles too, is it right?

They are like neutrinos particles.

What differences are from neutrinos and etherons?

For your question on 1903, I remember you that before the first Wright brother fly, a lot of scentist thought no object heavier than air would ever fly.

Fluid dinamic forces could not be considered in aether studyes because there are only a few studys about it.

Francis_Herbert_Wenham discover law on lift in 1866 but it’s pratically applied only on flying kites or in unlikely flying machines.

For this reason I think the time is came to consider this effect in aether theory, because if their effect is macroscopic, they must have a microscopic effect too.

I hope see you soon because your works explain a lot of effect inexplicable with other theorys, bat the fluid dynamic part is missing and I hope you add that soon.

Regards ___ Ing MM

[Marco]

Hallo John,

thanks for your quick expain about pulsar aberration.

Before jour post, I had just read your articles “Aberration and Sagnac effect” & “The Scandalous Sagnac effect”

and I understand better the set up of the experiment and the relation between the 2 measures, thank you for indications.

I completely agree.

About absorbtion:

Do you think absorbtion cause looses of energy respect moving free “things”? (considering “things” as atoms and aetherons with their respective mass)

I wrote you an estimated value of that looses caused by aetheron absorbtion.

That looses are loosed by aether field and transferred to atoms in form of vibrations that evolves in termal or electromagnetic or gravitational energy.

Aether, when encountring mass, cools down and atoms heats up, this is the main effect of absorbtion: did you valued this effect?

I think absorbtion is not the right way to tranfert energy: it’s a dissipative way and it became an irreversible transformation.

I remember you that first flight is dated 17/12/1903 and so 15 yars later 1887 M-M experiment and 54 yars later 1849 Fizeau speed of light experiment.

In this storic context fluid dynamic behaviour was almost completly unknow to the scientist and they developed theyr theory without this knowledge.

Aether was considered like a static fluid sea of pico-particles, trascuring fluid dynamic effects.

What’s happend when you move a body in the sea?

It’s braked, but non by absorbtion but from fluid dynamic forces.

A fluid dynamic flux produce a potential field (without dissipation if fluid is ideal and it becames reversible).

Think about it.

Ing MM

[Marco]

Hallo John,

😅 I badly explained myself about aberration…

I didn’t understood “your example on pulsar” and how it technically was made, not meanining aberration in general.😅

I hope this is the fault of my low-level English.

Today I read a your article and I understud a little more:

the measure of front wave of pulsar are delayed/anticipated of 4.2 microseconds ( = 640m) if measured in nearest point towards star compared to measure made 6400km behind nearest point, on earth surface…

Is this right?

I usually made measure of electronic compnents and I have all instruments near to me, this measure in 2 points so far is not simple for my usually environment…

It was a my understanding problem not your bad explain.

Second question on absorbtion.

Ok, I did an example of aether wind of 11.2 km/s and if its mass is adsorbed occours a 1/1000 of rest mass for second to produce a variation of velocity of 9.8 m/s.

If I understood your aether theory, the aether have a mean velocity of 11.2 km/s but every etheron have a larger velocity respect mean.

In this case what result by energy conservation law?

Mass of aether decrease with ratio of velocity/g, but energy lost (by aether) increase with square of velocity, so energy lost for hi velocity is about

1/2mv^2 =1/2*(M * 9.8/v)*v^2 = 1/2 M (9.8) v.

Energy lost is proportional to acelerated rest mass and velocity of aetherons.

To accelerate the same rest mass is dissipared an energy proportional to the velocity of aetherons.

Is a lot of energy, where goes this energy?

It’s too late now, goodnight

Ing MM

[Marco]

Hi John-Erik,

I like a lot your aether model, it explain a lot of phenomena using clasical phisics.

I don’t understand well your explantion of aberration (phereps I need a picture for clarity)

Some years ago I studied the possiblity of gravity with aether (like LaSage model) considering elastic collision because using absorption the grow rate of earth was too hi.

Considrinig aether with a velocity of 11.2km/s (escape velocity) to produce an acceleration of 9.81m/s^2, this need a flux of mass of absorption aether equal to the accelerate mass multiply by the ratio of accelerations/deceleration that is about 1/1000 (for conservation of quantity of motion).

So it’s a grow rate extremally hi, and not realistic, for this reason I thought for other mechanism of transfert force like in fluiddinamic Coanda or Magnus effect that don’t change the original mass.

It’s a very difficult problem, but some progress in 300 years have been made.

If it was easy it would be yet resolved.😉

I admire you John because you have a great constancy and I know how it’s difficult (Fabio said me his effort to explain its ideas, often misunderstend)

By

Ing MM

[Marco]

Dear John and all of you,

Sorry for my later answer, but I’m working for an electronic private company and I have very bit time for this very intersting forum.

I read also other author who develop theory on Fatio-La Sage hypotesys.

Some example are this:

https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/full/10.1139/cjp-2018-0744#.XJD-ANVKjIV

and this

http://liquidgravity.nz/Speed_Of_Light.html

(in 2018, but now i cant’ find this site: if someone if someone find it again find it again I’d like to recive the new link, thanks)

In my little free time I’m deepen fluid dynamics of vortex and solutions of Navier-Stokes equation, because it seem connected with gravitational behaviour.

John,

did you never tought aether cause gravity force trough Coanda effect? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coand%C4%83_effect)

Best regards Ing MM

p.s.

I haven’t explored your article yet, but I think aberration is compatible with Fatio theory.

[Marco]

Hi John,

I like your post and I saw your link and your good works.

I like theory and I’m depeening aether theory after seeing this article of my old internet friend Fabio.

He said a lot of things you bring back in your works.

He began his work doing practice experiment on microwaves interferometer…

It’s in italian and this is a summary link of some works:

https://www.altrogiornale.org/fabio-mosca-letere-verticale-rivelato/

Here there is a little section of theory, but experiment seem confirm a flow of vertical eather.

Best regards_________ Ing MM