Thank you for your email of 26 Mar. in which you enunciate a specific
substantive criticism of my ether model, namely
:"...we have them (ethetrons) boiling off the Sun. Wouldn't the Sun repel the planets?"
I've given a lot of thought to your point and I think I may be to offer
a quasi coherent response. In fact I have never previously
figured out an explanation of why the planets rotate in the same direction as the Sun; one would think that if the elastic impact
of the ethertrons were, alone, driving the planets than the rotation would be opposite to that of the Sun since the ethertron
density would be greater on the surface facing the Sun. Your query forced me to re-examine my postulates and try to find a
solution to both your question and my quandary about rotation.
So, let me restate how the ethertron is perceived to interact with various forms of matter. I perceive four modes:
Boiling occurs in the star core as a result of the nuclear burning of Hydrogen
and the release of the
massive amounts accounting for the energy difference between Hydrogen and Helium. This reaction is
sustained thermally by the assumption that Newton's third law applies to emissions such that the reactive
forces of the emitting ethertrons keep the star core compacted and at the required high temperature.
Recall that my model claims no gravitational field within the core of the star.
2. Elastic impact of the ethertrons on matter that does not involve absorption or emission. It is this force
which drives the planets in the same direction as the Sun rotates and which, as you point out would
drive the planets away unless there was a countervailing force
3. I assume that the something else going on that results in a countervailing force is associated with the
absorption and/or emission of ethertrons. Absorption has the energy accreted show up in the orbital
status of the electrons and therefore there is no component of force in the radial direction with respect to
4. Emission of ethertrons, on the other hand, escape into the ether environment and produce a third law
reactive component on the body it leaves along a radius directed towards the center of that body.
A planet rotating about the Sun will absorb ethertrons on the portion
facing the Sun and emit ethertrons on the dark side.
Thus, the emission phenomenon is envisioned to explain both the rotation and the centrifugal force required to balance the
centripetal force generated by the elastic impact emanating from ethertrons coming from the Sun's core. If we now assume
that two bodies at the same temperature attract each other in accordance with the Le Sage model we are left with the
conclusion that the gravitational constant is a function of temperature. This should be verifiable by experiment; it is my
understanding that attempts to establish a temperature relationship for gravitational attraction have not been successful.
Is my model beginning to look like a Tycho Brahe sort of rationalization
of observed departures from the simplicities called
for by Occam's razor? Do we go back to the original sin model of perpetually preserved original motion of the planets?
I took a brief walk through your "phi-wave" presentation with the conclusion
that I am not qualified to make a judgment
about it, except of course that we wind up with very similar overall views of the pitfalls of contemporary physics.