Entrainment of Elysium

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />this alternative seems to have the defect of predicting an ether wind, contrary to experimental observations. So - I must be missing an important piece of the puzzle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You ask a very good question here. I am in fact now in discussions with a referee over this very matter.

Suppose we have an undisturbed flow of a stream of water, such that its surface is flat and smooth. It would have to flow through a smooth, horizontal tube open on top because the roughness of a river bed would churn up the surface.

Now drop a rock into the flowing stream. Would the ripples spread from a center fixed where the rock dropped, or from a center flowing downstream with the water?

In general, ripples are formed from up-and-down motion of water molecules in place. That is why a floating object does not advance with a passing wave, but tends to stay in place.

In our example, the rock creates wave momentum equal in all directions around the fixed rock. Nothing is available to add momentum to the ripples to take on the stream motion. Instead, if the wave speed is x and the stream speed is y, where x &gt; y, then the ripple wave will simply develop a reduced wavelength (downstream side) or increased wavelength (upstream side). By the principle of relativity, the ripples cannot tell that the stream is moving. They simply make water molecules bob up-and-down as their momentum passes.

From the perspective of a water molecule moving downstream, the ripple simply overtakes it at a smaller relative speed, but that molecule is not given any additional lasting downstream momentum and does not attempt to follow the passing ripple.

So from both perspectives, the ripples (analog of lightwaves) should be oblivious to the stream motion (analog of aether wind).

I am still thinking about other consequences of this. Is there any chance of some experimentalist out there doing the experiment and photographing it? -|Tom|-

I waited anxiously for Tom's reply to this subject. My comment after reading both is this:
Since all massive objects in space are in motion, would elysium densities differ on the leading edge and trailing edge of the body? Would the ether then behave "ether-dynamically" based on the shape of the massive body?
Can this density difference in elysium be measured, perhaps by observing minute changes in graviational lensing on the leading and trailing edge of a body that is moving perpendicular to our line of site and refracting the same, more distant, light source?



Mark Vitrone

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>
<br />Since all massive objects in space are in motion, would elysium densities differ on the leading edge and trailing edge of the body?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, not in the sense you mean. Think of elysium as an ocean, and a material body as a school of synchronized fish. Elysium flows freely around and through each fish, so there is no actual density pooling of water in front of each swimming fish.

However, the mere act of swimming through water means that more water is encountered per unit time. So from the fish's perspective, it is just as if the water density had increased. But that is true for every fish, whether in the leading or trailing edge of the school. So every moving fish would act as if the water density had increased compared to the water for a fish at rest. There would be no difference that depended on the fish's ocation in the school.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Would the ether then behave "ether-dynamically" based on the shape of the massive body?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Maybe the shape of a matter ingredient might have such effects. But the shape of material bodies definitely does not. There is too much empty space within.

I have already seen that my explanation to Larry is faulty, and I think I know why. I have not yet had time to sit and think this through. But I will do so at my next opportunity. -|Tom|-

I am attempting to restate my previous entry.

The MM predicts that the quantity of elysium near the surface of a body in the straight line path between two bodies should be less than on the opposite end of the body causing net "attraction". If this summary is correct, shouldn't the relative fewer compressing c-gravitons cause a net difference in elysium. This would result in an elysium pressure difference that acts as a prime mover for the elysium. So, does this not predict at least a regional ether wind?

I am going out on limb here in equating a star to sponge:elysium to water.
A sponge with increasingly smaller holes or larger volume allows less water to penetrate. A sponge that is small with large holes permits water to flow. Getting to my point now: the larger a star, the more overlapping the tiny MI's are (assuming that elysium and gravitons collide and rebound instead of absorb or pass through), meaning that an opportunity for sweeping up and "collect" elysium on the leading edge could at least momentarily occur. Any diffence could then be quantified by redshift variance between the stars trailing and leading edges.

TOM: "Maybe the shape of a matter ingredient might have such effects. But the shape of material bodies definitely does not. There is too much empty space within."

I have no disagreement with the fact that the body is mostly empty space...however overlaps would present the elysium with opaque viewpoint for penetrance.

Does this hypothesis hold water? Would photographic spectroscopy provide evidence?


Mark Vitrone

I'm coming late to this discussion and have not yet read the thread mentioned by Larry citing guoliang liu so apologies if I'm not fully understanding the question of static vs. dynamic entrainment.

We've acknowledged elsewhere here that elysons are packed tightly around matter ingredients to such an extent that they are responsible for the strong and weak nuclear forces. Nuclear binding energies would necessarily be a measure of the strength required to dislocate the elysium. It seems to me that the layer of elysons most proximal to the matter ingredients would need to have lesser degrees of freedom than do elysons in the bulk medium. Therefore, for a dynamic entrainment model to be correct, even assuming a rapid dynamic equilbrium for elysons flowing adjacent to matter ingredients would't the resulting energy flux be observable as light at macroscopic scales?

It seems to me that there must be a layer of bound elysons that travel with the matter ingredients. But maybe I've got the question wrong.

No great thing was ever created suddenly - Epictitus

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>
<br />The MM predicts that the quantity of elysium near the surface of a body in the straight line path between two bodies should be less than on the opposite end of the body causing net "attraction".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If I understand your question, that difference is <i>extremely</i> tiny.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">does this not predict at least a regional ether wind?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The main question, and the one I think Larry was asking about, is the flow of the background elysium medium, which presumably has nothing to do with any local motions.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Would photographic spectroscopy provide evidence?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The effect should be way too small for detection. -|Tom|-