The Aether Question.
jeff...@howamazing.com
Government scientists think that it will
take a huge sun-orbiting "microphone" and
a super nova explosion in order to "hear"
the hyper-frequency chirp of a gravity wave.
It'd be a 4D-Brane-compression...
kind of like a sound wave in
the "vacuum" of the "Aether".
Right now, these earth-based gravity-wave
"microphones" are just picking up Tons of
common noise... eg truck traffic.
Is the "Aether" made of "quantum foam",
a "'perfect' fluid" or a 5th dimension?
In nature, Going to a higher/lower scale
can reveal another dimension... ad infinitum.
As humans improve on their tele/micro-scopes,
we'll naturally discover these new
dimensions, like Europe discovering America.
Note that Christopher Columbus risked
his life... yet he never got rich off it.
Einstein's SR was not purely a
"thought experiment" because it
was based on the experiments of others.
Likewise, "The Aether Question" may
be answered by someone reading about
the experiments of others.
- Jeff Relf -
Aether one or the other
By Jeffery D Kooistra, Mar 2000
Analog Science Fiction & Fact
Let's get one thing straight right at the start-the Michelson-Morley
experiment did not prove the nonexistence of the aether ("aether" being the
older spelling, of course, but I prefer it to "ether").
You've all heard that it did, but if you need to brush up, here's the usual
story. You can find something like this in almost any popular book on
relativity theory.
The Michelson-Morley experiment consisted of an interferometer mounted on a
turntable. An interferometer splits a light beam shone into it into two
parts and sends those parts off on different paths (usually at 90 degrees to
each other). It then recombines those beams after they've bounced off
mirrors and made their way back to the half-silvered splitter mirror that
separated them in the first place. By allowing the beams to interfere with
each other, you can produce what are called interference fringes. What these
fringes look like can be the result of something or other that's different
along one light path from the other one. This usually tells you something.
(Interferometers are used for many things. I used one myself to determine
the speed of light through various gases, and, just the other day, to
witness a very small deflection of a suspended dielectric in a really
fascinating experiment.)
Michelson and Morley were attempting to determine the speed of the Earth
against the presumably different speed of the background aether. Theirs
became the most famous null experiment in history when the expected changes
in the interference fringes failed to appear. Since scientists in the 1800s
weren't about to give up the notion of the Earth revolving around the Sun,
the aether had to go. Einstein figured out relativity theory in short order
thereafter. Now everyone knows there is no aether and all there is in space
is vacuum.
Well, vacuum made up of some kind of space-time foam in constant motion
resulting in the zero-point energy field, or something like that.
I know-I'm bracing for it already the inevitable manila envelope from the
editorial offices of Analog with fifteen letters correcting me and giving
the real explanation of what space-time foam is and why it isn't really an
aether, and how the zero-point energy is such-and-so, etc. I always find
those packages amusing because out of those fifteen letters I'll probably
find about ten different explanations about what it is that scientists
really mean when they talk about....
It's nice that there's such a diversity of opinion about known science.
Time for me to come clean. I've become an aether believer. I hadn't intended
to. It wasn't something I went looking for. But inevitably, aether theories
began to make so much more sense than the current views.
Theories?
Yes, plural. There are lots of different aether theories. At best, you might
say that the Michelson-Morely experiment disproved the existence of an
absolute, non-moving, mechanical aether, though even that isn't clear. It's
been shown many times now that the Michelson-Morley experiment was
inherently null in design. That is, it couldn't have given any kind of
result other than a null one even if there was an aether, so it told us
nothing. But that's OK since it's also been said that Einstein wasn't
thinking about that experiment anyway when he came up with special
relativity (which, by the way, had quite a pre-Einstein history of its own).
And this is good because, as it turns out, Einstein also believed in an
aether. As he said to his audience in Leyden: "As to the part the new ether
is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear. We know that
it determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum ... but we
do not know whether it has an essential share in the structure of the
elementary particles.... It would be a great advance if we could succeed in
comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together
as one unified conformation." (This; is quoted by Bryce DeWitt on page 681
in "Quantum Gravity: the new synthesis," which is chapter 14 in General
Relativity An Einstein Centenary Survey, edited by Hawking and Israel.)
What kinds of aethers are there? One I've mentioned before is the absolutely
fixed mechanical one. This aether could be thought of as some kind of
elastic solid in terms of the equations it obeys; and yes, it's hard to
imagine how light propagating through a medium like this could maintain a
constant velocity with respect to the Earth if the Earth was moving through
it.
Other varieties of aethers are based on the fluid model. You can adjust
parameters such as viscosity, compressibility, and the like and try to come
up with a model that matches experiment. One important idea readily apparent
from the fluid models of the aether is the notion of convection. Convective
flow is simply motion of the aether through itself. One way this model
explains the null result for the Michelson-Morley experiment is to point out
that the aether close to the surface of the Earth moves along with it.
Hence, locally, there was no difference in the speed of light along the
different paths of the interferometer because the aether was at rest with
respect to the experiment.
There is only _One_ Physics, so if the Universe can best be modeled along
some kind of aethereal lines, only one kind of aether theory can be the
right one. I'm pretty partial to the perfect fluid models of the aether, and
of those, the ones that model matter as being not in the aether, but of the
aether (that's what Einstein's talking about above when he says "an
essential share in the structure of the elementary particles. . . .").
This also is a very old idea. There were many attempts in the 1800s to model
"atoms" as some kind of vortices in the aether, but the majority of the
theorists could never get the mathematics of these models to work out
consistently and they eventually gave up. That's too bad-they were so close.
But one problem was with the mathematics of the aether itself.
You can go to almost any book about hydrodynamics and find out about
velocity fields and flow and streamlines and all that. Usually these books
start with some kind of idealized fluid to get the math sorted out, so right
there you have an aether theory Almost everyone knows that Maxwell's
equations also were formulated during the era of aether theories, so it
should come as no surprise that the formulas of electrodynamics and the
formulas of perfect fluid hydrodynamics are identical. Indeed, one finds
right in Sir Horace Lamb's book Hydrodynamics: "There is an exact
correspondence between the analytical relations above developed and certain
formulae in Electro-magnetism... Hence, the vortex-filaments correspond to
electric circuits, the strengths of the vortices to the strengths of the
currents in these circuits, sources and sinks to positive and negative
poles, and, finally, fluid velocity to magnetic force." (Hydrodynamics, Sir
Horace Lamb, page 210. First published in 1879.)
Now, I want to stay close to the "problems with the math" aspect here, and
the best quote for that can be found in Sommerfeld's Mechanics of Deformable
Bodies. While discussing these same equations he says, "The nonlinearity
which is caused by the presence of the convective terms makes the
integration incomparably more difficult." (Incidentally, on page 153 of the
same book, Sommerfeld also makes mention of the "perfect analogy between
hydrodynamics and electrodynamics.")
What makes things so incomparably more difficult is the nature of those
convective derivatives. Since these are nonlinear, superposition goes out
the window, and now we're talking lots of computational power to get things
sorted out and to find solutions to the equations. Such computing power was
not available in the late 1800s. Even familiar hydrodynamics equations like
Bemoulli's are just simplifications from the real situation to make the math
not just easier, but even doable. Much of the working man's hydrodynamics is
a linearized form of the true nonlinear situation, but fortunately, we can
do a lot of good even with something less than the truth.
Einstein also once said that quantum theory would "be superseded someday by
a nonlinear deterministic theory built, perhaps, on the lines of General
Relativity itself." (A. Einstein, Mein Weltbild, pub. Querido Verlag
(Amsterdam), 1933.) Indeed, general relativity is a nonlinear theory, and
much of the math looks like that same stuff one can find in the
hydrodynamics books. Aether theorists would be right at home with it.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Take a step back to the Lamb quote and consider what he said, then consider
this quote from Feynman where he says: "So vortex lines are like fines of B
[that is, magnetic field lines] they never start or stop, and will tend to
go in closed loops." And also: "The vortex lines move with the fluid." (the
Feynman Lectures, volume 11, pp. 40- 10 & 40- 11.) Ali, but moving field
lines are a convective property of the flow, implying nonlinearity, and yet,
electrodynamics is a linear theory.
Perhaps it shouldn't be.
Let's take a step into ordinary physics again and consider a little
something called pair production. Take an electron and a positron and put
them together and out comes an electromagnetic wave. Reverse the process,
and you can put in the wave and out come a pair of particles. Doesn't it
seem like maybe waves and particles should have a rather intimate connection
(besides this wave-- particle duality stuff we've all heard about)? Yet by
and large particle theorists stick to their domain, and electro-dynamicists
to theirs, apart from the latter dealing with electrons as charge carriers.
But, of course, electrons have a property called "spin," and this is related
to their angular momentum. Most quantum theory professors will tell you the
spin of the electron (or any other particle) is nothing at all like the kind
of spin we think of in ordinary mechanics, like with tops, or in
hydrodynamics, like with vortices. That's what Wolfgang Pauli said.
Actually, that's what Pauli used to think. In Tomonaga's book The Story of
Spin (you've heard of Tomonaga-he shared the Nobel Prize with Feynman and
Schwinger for quantum electrodynamics) we read this about Pauli: "Goudsmit
says that soon after Thomas' paper was out, he received a postcard from
Pauli saying, 'I now believe in the idea of the self-rotating electron.'"
Sorry for peppering you readers with quotes from famous physicists, but I
wanted you to see that ideas supportive of aether theories are not held only
by the heretics. To recap a bit, I pointed out that the Michelson-Morley
experiment didn't disprove the aether, and that Einstein was comfortable
with aether theories. I described perfect fluid aether models, with
particles being a sort of "structured aether" as opposed to bits of matter
floating around within an aether. I discussed how the mathematics of perfect
fluid aethers matches the mathematics of electrodynamics, except that modern
electrodynamics is a linear theory and the perfect fluid aether models are
nonlinear, and thus, it's hard to do the math in them. I suggested that this
might be where the problem lies for electrodynamics (which, as Feynman says,
isn't even selfconsistent) particularly as it applies to pair production. I
also mentioned that even Wolfgang Pauli had come to believe that the
property of spin was due to some kind of real rotation mechanism.
I think that if we just do the math, we can nicely link together all the
experimental phenomena via an aether model that we are today trying to unify
with Theories of Everything.
There is, of course, so much more, but this column is at its length limit.
If you're unhappy with aether ideas, well, you can always take the foam over
the fluid. But I wouldn't even do that with a glass of beer.
Bob Kolker
jeff...@howamazing.com wrote:
>
>
> There is, of course, so much more, but this column is at its length limit.
> If you're unhappy with aether ideas, well, you can always take the foam over
> the fluid. But I wouldn't even do that with a glass of beer.
Good man! Have you noticed that theories which do not assume an aether
of any kind are successful. Why is that? If aether were necessary for
the science wouldn't we have noticed the deficiency by now?
Aether is like God. There is no direct evidence for it. It is accepted
as a metaphysical or an aesthetic necessity about knowing what Nature
IS. But we cannot know what Nature IS. We can only know what we perceive
and do the best we can patching our perceptions into a coherent story
which gives us good predictions.
I completely agree with your approach to beer and other foaming goodies.
Bob Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bob Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3CC1839B...@attbi.com...
>
>
> jeff...@howamazing.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > There is, of course, so much more, but this column is at its length limit.
> > If you're unhappy with aether ideas, well, you can always take the foam over
> > the fluid. But I wouldn't even do that with a glass of beer.
>
> Good man! Have you noticed that theories which do not assume an aether
> of any kind are successful. Why is that? If aether were necessary for
> the science wouldn't we have noticed the deficiency by now?
The smartest among us have noticed: look at Wilson, Seto and Thompson ;-)
>
> Aether is like God. There is no direct evidence for it. It is accepted
> as a metaphysical or an aesthetic necessity about knowing what Nature
> IS. But we cannot know what Nature IS. We can only know what we perceive
> and do the best we can patching our perceptions into a coherent story
> which gives us good predictions.
Well put.
> I completely agree with your approach to beer and other foaming goodies.
:-)
> Bob Kolker
Dirk Vdm
pst...@ix.netcom.com
<jeff...@howamazing.com> wrote:
If one ever bother's to look at the actual model Maxwell developed in
meticulous detail, and wrote nearly a book length treatise to describe,
one would have to conclude that Lamb's observation is redundant.
Well you describe many modern aetherist. They usually don't start out as such,
I certainly didn't. Thus is the inherrent nature of our scientific education
system. M any don't come 'out of the closet' as long as they have to make a
living in the field. That reputations are ruined just by endorsing the concept
is well established. Thus what you see is that, like any sociologically
persecuted group, you either have the very strong willed type who simply don't
care about consequences at all, or those that have nothing to (or left to) lose
(social-economically speaking) like the Petr Beckmanns ('coming out' after retiring
from academia) the Dingles... etc. And in the who the hell cares category, myself,
the Van Flandern, Arp, Clarke, and Putoff... etc.
Your article pretty much covers all the salient points that I myself have stated
over the years here, but probably much clearer and succintly than I...
Paul Stowe
pst...@ix.netcom.com
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bob Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3CC1839B...@attbi.com...
>>
>>
>> jeff...@howamazing.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> There is, of course, so much more, but this column is at its length limit.
>>> If you're unhappy with aether ideas, well, you can always take the foam over
>>> the fluid. But I wouldn't even do that with a glass of beer.
>>
>> Good man! Have you noticed that theories which do not assume an aether
>> of any kind are successful. Why is that? If aether were necessary for
>> the science wouldn't we have noticed the deficiency by now?
>
> The smartest among us have noticed: look at Wilson, Seto and Thompson ;-)
Actually the 'smartest' amoungst us have noticed that every successful theory
DOES include the aether whether one 'assumed it' or not. That's including
Einstein.
>>
>> Aether is like God. There is no direct evidence for it. It is accepted
>> as a metaphysical or an aesthetic necessity about knowing what Nature
>> IS. But we cannot know what Nature IS. We can only know what we perceive
>> and do the best we can patching our perceptions into a coherent story
>> which gives us good predictions.
>
> Well put.
That bullshit, a lazy cop-out, and lousy philosophy.
>> I completely agree with your approach to beer and other foaming goodies.
Yeah, we see where your priorities lie... and it ain't being serious about
physics
Paul Stowe
Dirk Van de moortel
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:a9s4dh$4l7$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <71gw8.28220$Ze....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>,
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bob Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3CC1839B...@attbi.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> jeff...@howamazing.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There is, of course, so much more, but this column is at its length limit.
> >>> If you're unhappy with aether ideas, well, you can always take the foam over
> >>> the fluid. But I wouldn't even do that with a glass of beer.
> >>
> >> Good man! Have you noticed that theories which do not assume an aether
> >> of any kind are successful. Why is that? If aether were necessary for
> >> the science wouldn't we have noticed the deficiency by now?
> >
> > The smartest among us have noticed: look at Wilson, Seto and Thompson ;-)
>
> Actually the 'smartest' amoungst us have noticed that every successful theory
> DOES include the aether whether one 'assumed it' or not. That's including
> Einstein.
Sorry for not having mentioned your name.
I haven't really followed your contributions until now, although
your posts are coloured green, so I must have categorized you
among the crackpots somewhere in the past.
> >>
> >> Aether is like God. There is no direct evidence for it. It is accepted
> >> as a metaphysical or an aesthetic necessity about knowing what Nature
> >> IS. But we cannot know what Nature IS. We can only know what we perceive
> >> and do the best we can patching our perceptions into a coherent story
> >> which gives us good predictions.
> >
> > Well put.
>
> That bullshit, a lazy cop-out, and lousy philosophy.
It is very accurate, so I say: Very well put.
Philosophy is only lousy when it is applied by ignorami.
Dirk Vdm
Patrick Reany
pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Actually the 'smartest' amoungst us have noticed that every successful theory
> DOES include the aether whether one 'assumed it' or not. That's including
> Einstein.
There is no one notion of ether. Seems like the
etherists around here are all about religion, or
egotism and self-promotion, or establishment hatred.
Who gives a damn whether or not there is some
damn ether???????? Physical concept are free
creations of the human mind.
> >>
> >> Aether is like God. There is no direct evidence for it. It is accepted
> >> as a metaphysical or an aesthetic necessity about knowing what Nature
> >> IS. But we cannot know what Nature IS. We can only know what we perceive
> >> and do the best we can patching our perceptions into a coherent story
> >> which gives us good predictions.
> >
> > Well put.
>
> That bullshit, a lazy cop-out, and lousy philosophy.
>
> >> I completely agree with your approach to beer and other foaming goodies.
>
> Yeah, we see where your priorities lie... and it ain't being serious about
> physics
>
> Paul Stowe
>
Aether, Aether everywhere, but not a drop
to drink.
Nothing is "real" in physics but numbers arbitrarily
assigned to event pairs.
Patrick
Bob Kolker
pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
> Actually the 'smartest' amoungst us have noticed that every successful theory
> DOES include the aether whether one 'assumed it' or not. That's including
> Einstein.
Yup. There are no atheists in foxholes. Sure. You will put an aether in
a theory even if one is not assumed, won't you. You will probably claim
spacetime as a kind of aether won't you?
Bob Kolker
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
Don't have to, Einstein already did that ...:)
Paul Stowe
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
>pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Actually the 'smartest' amoungst us have noticed that every successful theory
>> DOES include the aether whether one 'assumed it' or not. That's including
>> Einstein.
>
> There is no one notion of ether. Seems like the etherists around here
> are all about religion, or egotism and self-promotion, or establishment
> hatred. Who gives a damn whether or not there is some damn ether????????
Oh, I don't know, maybe the type that is serious about undersatanding the
working of nature... That certainly wouldn't be the likes of you.
> Physical concept are free creations of the human mind.
Yeah, yeah, we've done heard that mantra of yours too many times...
>>>>
>>>> Aether is like God. There is no direct evidence for it. It is accepted
>>>> as a metaphysical or an aesthetic necessity about knowing what Nature
>>>> IS. But we cannot know what Nature IS. We can only know what we perceive
>>>> and do the best we can patching our perceptions into a coherent story
>>>> which gives us good predictions.
>>>
>>> Well put.
>>
>> That bullshit, a lazy cop-out, and lousy philosophy.
>>
>>>> I completely agree with your approach to beer and other foaming goodies.
>>
>> Yeah, we see where your priorities lie... and it ain't being serious about
>> physics
>
> Aether, Aether everywhere, but not a drop to drink.
Be glad or none of us would be around to debate it...
> Nothing is "real" in physics but numbers arbitrarily assigned to event pairs.
Spoken like a true positivist...
Paul Stowe
MarkK
> >
> >
> > There is, of course, so much more, but this column is at its length limit.
> > If you're unhappy with aether ideas, well, you can always take the foam over
> > the fluid. But I wouldn't even do that with a glass of beer.
>
> Good man! Have you noticed that theories which do not assume an aether
> of any kind are successful. Why is that? If aether were necessary for
> the science wouldn't we have noticed the deficiency by now?
It's completely irrelevant wether or not it's presently "unnecessary"
for "science". Fact is it's necessary for nature and reality.
>
> Aether is like God. There is no direct evidence for it.
Bullshit. You sure won't find more evidence for it with your head
buried in the sand.
> It is accepted
> as a metaphysical or an aesthetic necessity about knowing what Nature
> IS. But we cannot know what Nature IS.
Sure we will, eventually, and no thanks to your ilk. You might be
willing to fester with 100 year old theories but times move on.
> We can only know what we perceive
> and do the best we can patching our perceptions into a coherent story
> which gives us good predictions.
>
> I completely agree with your approach to beer and other foaming goodies.
I'm sure that you are far more useful in that line of research than
any other.
Mark K.
>
> Bob Kolker
MarkK
Sure beats bent emptiness.
Do you even have any incling of an idea about what is curved, what
does the distorting, and what follows the curves?
This is what science has to say about it:
We have these photon thingies, which are sort of waves. No, oops they
are particles, sort of so small that they virtually never collide,
sort of waveparticle type stuff. Oh, and they stop themselves going
faster than the speed they all go at. Well anyway, maybe they have
mass or not but they have this energy stuff which just "is" and, eer,
well then these "graviton" thingies just shoot out of matter (which is
sort of little lumpy stuff all whizzing around itself), anyway, the
gravitons just shoot out and suck the photon thingies back to base. Or
not, they sort of hang on to them and the let go, ...when they feel
like it. There's lots of these gravitons everywhere but we can't find
them because, eer. Anyway, they must be there because we wouldn't have
gravity otherwise now, would we, Idiot? Now run along because we got
it all figured, you're just too dumb to understand. Duhh.
Mark K.
>
> Bob Kolker
MarkK
Regards, Mark K.
<jeff...@howamazing.com> wrote in message news:<a9qaof$r96$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>...
Dirk Van de moortel
"MarkK" <markk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6e7b962f.02042...@posting.google.com...
> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CC1839B...@attbi.com>...
> > jeff...@howamazing.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > There is, of course, so much more, but this column is at its length limit.
> > > If you're unhappy with aether ideas, well, you can always take the foam over
> > > the fluid. But I wouldn't even do that with a glass of beer.
> >
> > Good man! Have you noticed that theories which do not assume an aether
> > of any kind are successful. Why is that? If aether were necessary for
> > the science wouldn't we have noticed the deficiency by now?
>
> It's completely irrelevant wether or not it's presently "unnecessary"
> for "science". Fact is it's necessary for nature and reality.
And how do you find out about "nature" and "reality"?
By sucking your thumb and writing down what you hear?
Dirk Vdm
Bob Kolker
MarkK wrote:
> > Aether is like God. There is no direct evidence for it.
>
> Bullshit. You sure won't find more evidence for it with your head
> buried in the sand.
Produce evidence for the existence of (an) aether. Of course first
define what your aether is, then show experimental evidence for it, such
that any theory which does not assume such aether cannot fit with the
know facts. Pray amaze us all with your brilliance.
Bob Kolker
Patrick Reany
MarkK wrote:
> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CC1839B...@attbi.com>...
> > jeff...@howamazing.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > There is, of course, so much more, but this column is at its length limit.
> > > If you're unhappy with aether ideas, well, you can always take the foam over
> > > the fluid. But I wouldn't even do that with a glass of beer.
> >
> > Good man! Have you noticed that theories which do not assume an aether
> > of any kind are successful. Why is that? If aether were necessary for
> > the science wouldn't we have noticed the deficiency by now?
>
> It's completely irrelevant wether or not it's presently "unnecessary"
> for "science". Fact is it's necessary for nature and reality.
Prove it! Facts are provable, right?
> >
> > Aether is like God. There is no direct evidence for it.
>
> Bullshit.
I'll accept the existence of ether if it is as demonstrable
as literal bullshit, which I can see with my own eyes,
afterall: seeing is believing, right? Stepping into ether
isn't as messy as stepping into bullshit I suppose.
> You sure won't find more evidence for it with your head
> buried in the sand.
>
> > It is accepted
> > as a metaphysical or an aesthetic necessity about knowing what Nature
> > IS. But we cannot know what Nature IS.
>
> Sure we will, eventually, and no thanks to your ilk.
Why does it matter to you people? You people
treat ether like the next best thing to GOD. Why
do you give a damn about the ether concept?
Patrick
Paul Stowe
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>MarkK wrote:
>
>> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CC1839B...@attbi.com>...
>>> jeff...@howamazing.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is, of course, so much more, but this column is at its length limit.
>>>> If you're unhappy with aether ideas, well, you can always take the foam over
>>>> the fluid. But I wouldn't even do that with a glass of beer.
>>>
>>> Good man! Have you noticed that theories which do not assume an aether
>>> of any kind are successful. Why is that? If aether were necessary for
>>> the science wouldn't we have noticed the deficiency by now?
>>
>> It's completely irrelevant wether or not it's presently "unnecessary"
>> for "science". Fact is it's necessary for nature and reality.
>
> Prove it! Facts are provable, right?
Yup... I'll give you the same level of 'proof' that exist for many other
well accepted concepts, how's that.
>>>
>>> Aether is like God. There is no direct evidence for it.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
> I'll accept the existence of ether if it is as demonstrable
> as literal bullshit, which I can see with my own eyes,
> afterall: seeing is believing, right? Stepping into ether
> isn't as messy as stepping into bullshit I suppose.
Actually every particle of 'matter' consists of aether. Thus
your statement waxes poetic...
>> You sure won't find more evidence for it with your head
>> buried in the sand.
>>
>>> It is accepted as a metaphysical or an aesthetic necessity
>> about knowing what Nature IS. But we cannot know what Nature
>> IS.
>>
>> Sure we will, eventually, and no thanks to your ilk.
>
> Why does it matter to you people? You people treat ether like
> the next best thing to GOD. Why do you give a damn about the
> ether concept?
Reverse the question, why do so many 'give a damn' about there
having to BE none...
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
> pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>> In article <3CC1A424...@asu.edu>,
>> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Actually the 'smartest' amoungst us have noticed that every successful theory
>>>> DOES include the aether whether one 'assumed it' or not. That's including
>>>> Einstein.
>>>
>>> There is no one notion of ether. Seems like the etherists around here
>>> are all about religion, or egotism and self-promotion, or establishment
>>> hatred. Who gives a damn whether or not there is some damn ether????????
>>
>> Oh, I don't know, maybe the type that is serious about undersatanding the
>> working of nature... That certainly wouldn't be the likes of you.
>
> Ironically, those who claim to be after the TRUTH are the most self-deceived
> and dogmatic of all.
Now where my above statement was there ANY inkling of TRUTH? I said 'the
working of nature'.
>>> Physical concept are free creations of the human mind.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah, we've done heard that mantra of yours too many times...
>
> Actually, Einstein said it before I did. Prove that they're not
> free creations of the human mind!
Yeah, we all are aware that you're an Einstein worshiper. But, as any
perusal of the posting history will revel that phase has become
'your mantra'.
>>> Nothing is "real" in physics but numbers arbitrarily assigned to event
>>> pairs.
>>
>> Spoken like a true positivist...
>>
>
> Prove me WRONG!
OK, the Sun WILL rise in one direction and set in the opposite one.
That's as 'real' as your pathetic little mind can fathom.
> Oh, while you're at it, define "real," since it seems to be the central
> (mis)conception of your universe.
Go get a fucking dictionary if you really need a definition...
Paul Stowe
MarkK
> MarkK wrote:
> > > Aether is like God. There is no direct evidence for it.
> >
> > Bullshit. You sure won't find more evidence for it with your head
> > buried in the sand.
>
> that any theory which does not assume such aether cannot fit with the
> know facts. Pray amaze us all with your brilliance.
>
> Bob Kolker
Produce evidence of the graviton and the causal mechanism of
"spacetime". Of course first define what your spacetime is, then show
experimental evidence for the graviton. Pray tell why "photons" only
move at c in an alleged void. Pray amaze us all with your brilliance.
Mark K.
MarkK
By not ascribing magic properties to voids or coming up with crap like
"point particles" or "pull particles" (gravitons). What the fuck is a
"particle" anyway?
> By sucking your thumb and writing down what you hear?
Is that what you secretly do while reading fizzics books?
Mark K.
> Dirk Vdm
Patrick Reany
Paul Stowe wrote:
> In article <3CC2030C...@asu.edu>,
> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >MarkK wrote:
> >
> >> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CC1839B...@attbi.com>...
> >>> jeff...@howamazing.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> There is, of course, so much more, but this column is at its length limit.
> >>>> If you're unhappy with aether ideas, well, you can always take the foam over
> >>>> the fluid. But I wouldn't even do that with a glass of beer.
> >>>
> >>> Good man! Have you noticed that theories which do not assume an aether
> >>> of any kind are successful. Why is that? If aether were necessary for
> >>> the science wouldn't we have noticed the deficiency by now?
> >>
> >> It's completely irrelevant wether or not it's presently "unnecessary"
> >> for "science". Fact is it's necessary for nature and reality.
> >
> > Prove it! Facts are provable, right?
>
> Yup... I'll give you the same level of 'proof' that exist for many other
> well accepted concepts, how's that.
This ought to be good.
> >>>
> >>> Aether is like God. There is no direct evidence for it.
> >>
> >> Bullshit.
> >
> > I'll accept the existence of ether if it is as demonstrable
> > as literal bullshit, which I can see with my own eyes,
> > afterall: seeing is believing, right? Stepping into ether
> > isn't as messy as stepping into bullshit I suppose.
>
> Actually every particle of 'matter' consists of aether. Thus
> your statement waxes poetic...
>
> >> You sure won't find more evidence for it with your head
> >> buried in the sand.
> >>
> >>> It is accepted as a metaphysical or an aesthetic necessity
> >> about knowing what Nature IS. But we cannot know what Nature
> >> IS.
> >>
> >> Sure we will, eventually, and no thanks to your ilk.
> >
> > Why does it matter to you people? You people treat ether like
> > the next best thing to GOD. Why do you give a damn about the
> > ether concept?
>
> Reverse the question, why do so many 'give a damn' about there
> having to BE none...
>
Why did you once again dodge a direct question?
Or is it that all you "smart" people are just habitually
evasive and irrational?
>
> Paul Stowe
I don't give a damn either way about an ether.
It's all imagination anyway.
So, where's the PROOF you said you'd give?
Patrick
Bob Kolker
Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>
> Actually every particle of 'matter' consists of aether. Thus
> your statement waxes poetic...
How about some proof? First of all what is aether (your version) and
then what experimental result supports your conclusion in such a way,
that no other hypothesis is tenable?
Bob Kolker
>
Bob Kolker
Photons are measured to move at c (in vacuo). It is an experimental
fact.
Bob Kolker
MarkK
And how do they manage to stay at c ? Or are you saying they do
because they do and that's that?
Mark K.
> Bob Kolker
John Goold
used ether for the production of colloids, I do know that if you sniff
enough of the stuff, you will soon meet God. You can then bring up the whole
esoteric subject with him - if there is a him!
Dirk Van de moortel
"MarkK" <markk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6e7b962f.02042...@posting.google.com...
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<KZlw8.28879$Ze....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
> > "MarkK" <markk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6e7b962f.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CC1839B...@attbi.com>...
> > > > jeff...@howamazing.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There is, of course, so much more, but this column is at its length limit.
> > > > > If you're unhappy with aether ideas, well, you can always take the foam over
> > > > > the fluid. But I wouldn't even do that with a glass of beer.
> > > >
> > > > Good man! Have you noticed that theories which do not assume an aether
> > > > of any kind are successful. Why is that? If aether were necessary for
> > > > the science wouldn't we have noticed the deficiency by now?
> > >
> > > It's completely irrelevant wether or not it's presently "unnecessary"
> > > for "science". Fact is it's necessary for nature and reality.
> >
> > And how do you find out about "nature" and "reality"?
>
> By not ascribing magic properties to voids or coming up with crap like
> "point particles" or "pull particles" (gravitons). What the fuck is a
> "particle" anyway?
You think you have to be able to see a particle before you and
understand its workings, but you can't. So you reject it.
What the fuck does it matter what a particle "is"? "Particle" is a
name given to a concept. It could just as well been called "moron".
What matters is what we can do with it. For an easy introduction,
walk around on
http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/index.html
Dirk Vdm
Bob Kolker
MarkK wrote:
>
>
> And how do they manage to stay at c ? Or are you saying they do
> because they do and that's that?
A fact is a fact whether or not one knows a cause for it. Science is
ultimately based on facts.
We will never know the ultimate WHYs of Nature. It is well if we know
some of the HOWs.
Bob Kolker
Patrick Reany
MarkK wrote:
Don't they teach students anything is school anymore?
Patrick
Paul Stowe
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
Seems they taught him more than they taught you... But hey, if you can't
answer the questions, why reply at all?
Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>MarkK wrote:
>>
>>
>> And how do they manage to stay at c ? Or are you saying they do
>> because they do and that's that?
>
> A fact is a fact whether or not one knows a cause for it. Science is
> ultimately based on facts.
No, science is ultimately about explaining & quantifying the world we
inhabit.
> We will never know the ultimate WHYs of Nature. It is well if we know
> some of the HOWs.
OK, let's rephrase the question,
How does nature regulate light's speed? The FACTS ARE, ether theory
does provide answers within its framework for both the its local
invariant and global 'observed' variations...
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> In article <3CC2030C...@asu.edu>,
>> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>MarkK wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CC1839B...@attbi.com>...
>>>>> jeff...@howamazing.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is, of course, so much more, but this column is at its length limit.
>>>>>> If you're unhappy with aether ideas, well, you can always take the foam over
>>>>>> the fluid. But I wouldn't even do that with a glass of beer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good man! Have you noticed that theories which do not assume an aether
>>>>> of any kind are successful. Why is that? If aether were necessary for
>>>>> the science wouldn't we have noticed the deficiency by now?
>>>>
>>>> It's completely irrelevant wether or not it's presently "unnecessary"
>>>> for "science". Fact is it's necessary for nature and reality.
>>>
>>> Prove it! Facts are provable, right?
>>
>> Yup... I'll give you the same level of 'proof' that exist for many other
>> well accepted concepts, how's that.
>
> This ought to be good.
OK, here's the deal. You give us 'proof' of let's say the Higgs, lay it
all out in a logical manner and provide the experimental evidence for
same. I will then do the same for the aether. Thus we can then compare
the proofs and see which one holds more water. You're right, this ought
to be good...
>>>>>
>>>>> Aether is like God. There is no direct evidence for it.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> I'll accept the existence of ether if it is as demonstrable
>>> as literal bullshit, which I can see with my own eyes,
>>> afterall: seeing is believing, right? Stepping into ether
>>> isn't as messy as stepping into bullshit I suppose.
>>
>> Actually every particle of 'matter' consists of aether. Thus
>> your statement waxes poetic...
>>
>>>> You sure won't find more evidence for it with your head
>>>> buried in the sand.
>>>>
>>>>> It is accepted as a metaphysical or an aesthetic necessity
>>>> about knowing what Nature IS. But we cannot know what Nature
>>>> IS.
>>>>
>>>> Sure we will, eventually, and no thanks to your ilk.
>>>
>>> Why does it matter to you people? You people treat ether like
>>> the next best thing to GOD. Why do you give a damn about the
>>> ether concept?
>>
>> Reverse the question, why do so many 'give a damn' about there
>> having to BE none...
>>
>
> Why did you once again dodge a direct question? Or is it that all
> you "smart" people are just habitually evasive and irrational?
I didn't dodge anything, I actually answered your question. You just
seem to dense to 'get it'...
> I don't give a damn either way about an ether. It's all imagination
> anyway.
Ultimately, that the nature of human beings. But the question really
is, is what we perceive independent of what our minds imagine...
> So, where's the PROOF you said you'd give?
Define proof :)...
Paul Stowe
hanson
"You treat people with ether is the next best thing to GOD."
"John Goold" <jjmr...@hn.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:W3ww8.1827$2l.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> I do know that if you sniff enough of the stuff [ether],
> you will soon meet God. You can then bring up the
> whole esoteric subject with him - if there is a him!
>
>
> > Patrick:
Bob Kolker
Two things. Aether has not been detected by experimental means (choose
the aether of your liking other than spacetime) and theories that do not
assume aether predict successfully, so who needs aether?
How does aether account for the predictions made by the various flavors
of quantum theory?
No aether theory ever predicted anti-particles. But Dirac was able to do
so by modifying Schroedinger's equation and taking into account
relativistic effects.
Aether does not predict the photo electric effect. You need particles
for that. Maxwellian waves carry their energy in the amplitude, not the
frequency.
Aether does not predict the violation of Bell's Inequalities. Quantum
theory does.
and so on....
Aether is a lot of gas.
Bob Kolker
> Paul Stowe
>
Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>> In article <3CC2B55C...@attbi.com>,
>> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> MarkK wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And how do they manage to stay at c ? Or are you saying they do
>>>> because they do and that's that?
>>>
>>> A fact is a fact whether or not one knows a cause for it. Science
>>> is ultimately based on facts.
>>
>> No, science is ultimately about explaining & quantifying the world
>> we inhabit.
>>
>>> We will never know the ultimate WHYs of Nature. It is well if we
>>> know some of the HOWs.
>>
>> OK, let's rephrase the question,
>>
>> How does nature regulate light's speed? The FACTS ARE, ether theory
>> does provide answers within its framework for both the its local
>> invariant and global 'observed' variations...
>>
>
> Two things. Aether has not been detected by experimental means (choose
> the aether of your liking other than spacetime) ...
Oh, I think Maxwell's aether has been quite detected. BTW, Maxwell's
aether was never refuted by any observation or experiment. Further, as
you should be aware, Maxwell's aether is also space-time's aether.
> ...and theories that do not assume aether predict successfully, so who
> needs aether?
Anyone who ever really wants unification...
> How does aether account for the predictions made by the various flavors
> of quantum theory?
Easily. All one needs realize is that Planck's constant is the aetherial
'kinetic action' parameter. Next, they need to recognize that all material
manifiestations are interactions of Maxwell's vortices...
> No aether theory ever predicted anti-particles. But Dirac was able to do
> so by modifying Schroedinger's equation and taking into account
> relativistic effects.
Dirac was a closet aetherist. As for anti-particles, they're in Maxwell's
model...
> Aether does not predict the photo electric effect. You need particles
> for that. Maxwellian waves carry their energy in the amplitude, not the
> frequency.
Wrong, all you need is quantized interactions for that.
> Aether does not predict the violation of Bell's Inequalities. Quantum
> theory does.
Really? That somehow just seems a natural extension ...
> and so on....
>
> Aether is a lot of gas.
Go ahead, believe what you want, I somehow think unfolding history will
prove otherwise.
Paul Stowe
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul Stowe" <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:a9ur2a$rtp$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <3CC2E64B...@attbi.com>,
> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >Paul Stowe wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3CC2B55C...@attbi.com>,
> >> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> MarkK wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And how do they manage to stay at c ? Or are you saying they do
> >>>> because they do and that's that?
> >>>
> >>> A fact is a fact whether or not one knows a cause for it. Science
> >>> is ultimately based on facts.
> >>
> >> No, science is ultimately about explaining & quantifying the world
> >> we inhabit.
> >>
> >>> We will never know the ultimate WHYs of Nature. It is well if we
> >>> know some of the HOWs.
> >>
> >> OK, let's rephrase the question,
> >>
> >> How does nature regulate light's speed? The FACTS ARE, ether theory
> >> does provide answers within its framework for both the its local
> >> invariant and global 'observed' variations...
> >>
> >
> > Two things. Aether has not been detected by experimental means (choose
> > the aether of your liking other than spacetime) ...
>
> Oh, I think Maxwell's aether has been quite detected. BTW, Maxwell's
> aether was never refuted by any observation or experiment. Further, as
> you should be aware, Maxwell's aether is also space-time's aether.
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3838AC00...@lucent.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3838A801...@lucent.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3838AA2A...@lucent.com
Dirk Vdm
Bob Kolker
Paul Stowe wrote:
>
> > the aether of your liking other than spacetime) ...
>
> Oh, I think Maxwell's aether has been quite detected. BTW, Maxwell's
> aether was never refuted by any observation or experiment. Further, as
> you should be aware, Maxwell's aether is also space-time's aether.
Complete with the rollers and the idler gears?
See - Physical Lines of Force - by James Clerk-Maxwell
>
> > ...and theories that do not assume aether predict successfully, so who
> > needs aether?
>
> Anyone who ever really wants unification...
>
> > How does aether account for the predictions made by the various flavors
> > of quantum theory?
>
> Easily.
Cite please. Show where. Show how based on experimentally confirmed data
and rigorous mathematical derivation.
> All one needs realize is that Planck's constant is the aetherial
> 'kinetic action' parameter. Next, they need to recognize that all material
> manifiestations are interactions of Maxwell's vortices...
Maxwell knew nothing of Plank's constant although he was getting easy
about the equipartition of energy. He know something was wrong with
statistical mechanics, but he did not know what. Show where aether was
specifically used to derive Planck's Constant. A citation to a real
honest to god journal will do just fine.
>
> > No aether theory ever predicted anti-particles. But Dirac was able to do
> > so by modifying Schroedinger's equation and taking into account
> > relativistic effects.
>
> Dirac was a closet aetherist. As for anti-particles, they're in Maxwell's
> model...
Cite Please. Maxwell did not even know about electrons when he was
alive.
>
> > Aether does not predict the photo electric effect. You need particles
> > for that. Maxwellian waves carry their energy in the amplitude, not the
> > frequency.
>
> Wrong, all you need is quantized interactions for that.
>
> > Aether does not predict the violation of Bell's Inequalities. Quantum
> > theory does.
>
> Really? That somehow just seems a natural extension ...
Seems. Prove that Aether does predict the violation of Bell's
Inequalities. Just tell us what aether is first though.
>
> > and so on....
> >
> > Aether is a lot of gas.
>
> Go ahead, believe what you want, I somehow think unfolding history will
> prove otherwise.
>
I am interested in experimentally established facts, not hopes about
what history will bring.
Bob Kolker
Paul Stowe
ROTFLMAO, oh, oh, pleeeeaaaaassse let me catch my breath...
OK, First, those have NOTHING to say about Maxwell's theory. Second,
didn't you know that the equations developed by Maxwell's based upon
his theory WAS the impetus for LET/SR? OOW, Maxwell's equations ARE
Lorentz covariant 'right out of the box', as written by Maxwell.
What a novice...
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>> > the aether of your liking other than spacetime) ...
>>
>> Oh, I think Maxwell's aether has been quite detected. BTW, Maxwell's
>> aether was never refuted by any observation or experiment. Further, as
>> you should be aware, Maxwell's aether is also space-time's aether.
>
> Complete with the rollers and the idler gears?
>
> See - Physical Lines of Force - by James Clerk-Maxwell
Please, do. BTW, its "ON the Physical Lines of Forece"... Further how
about a citation from same...
>>> ...and theories that do not assume aether predict successfully, so
>>> who needs aether?
>>
>> Anyone who ever really wants unification...
>>
>>> How does aether account for the predictions made by the various flavors
>>> of quantum theory?
>>
>> Easily.
>
> Cite please. Show where. Show how based on experimentally confirmed data
> and rigorous mathematical derivation.
Thats a tall order
>> All one needs realize is that Planck's constant is the aetherial
>> 'kinetic action' parameter. Next, they need to recognize that all material
>> manifiestations are interactions of Maxwell's vortices...
>
> Maxwell knew nothing of Plank's constant although he was getting easy
> about the equipartition of energy. He know something was wrong with
> statistical mechanics, but he did not know what. Show where aether was
> specifically used to derive Planck's Constant. A citation to a real
> honest to god journal will do just fine.
First, how aobut you give us the general mathematical definition of the
kinetic action parameter from kinetic theory...
>>> No aether theory ever predicted anti-particles. But Dirac was able to do
>>> so by modifying Schroedinger's equation and taking into account
>>> relativistic effects.
>>
>> Dirac was a closet aetherist. As for anti-particles, they're in Maxwell's
>> model...
>
> Cite Please. Maxwell did not even know about electrons when he was alive.
Maxwell's theory was one of interacting ring vortices... Now, you have
four possible basic individual ring states. These are,
> <
x * Ring state A
< >
< >
x * Ring state B
> <
> <
* x Ring state anti-A
< >
< >
* x Ring state anti-B
> <
Note, x is toroidal circulation into the page, * toroidal circulation out
of the page, > & < direction of poloidal circulation in the plane of the
page...
Now hydrodynamically, these rings can & do interact with each other?
Want to guess happens when A & anti-A interact, or B & anti-B interact?
Try looking at what the circulation vectors do, they cancel, being equal
& opposite. IOW, the 'blow' each other apart at the speed of propagation.
Now are you going to try to tell me it ain't so, or that Maxwell model
wasn't ring vortices. If you can't do either, one must conclude that
atni-states (anti-matter since Maxwell's theory was the atomic vortex
hypothesis) was always there... inherrent to his system.
>>> Aether does not predict the photo electric effect. You need particles
>>> for that. Maxwellian waves carry their energy in the amplitude, not the
>>> frequency.
>>
>> Wrong, all you need is quantized interactions for that.
>>
>>> Aether does not predict the violation of Bell's Inequalities. Quantum
>>> theory does.
>>
>> Really? That somehow just seems a natural extension ...
>
> Seems. Prove that Aether does predict the violation of Bell's
> Inequalities. Just tell us what aether is first though.
>>
>>> and so on....
>>>
>>> Aether is a lot of gas.
>>
>> Go ahead, believe what you want, I somehow think unfolding history will
>> prove otherwise.
>>
> I am interested in experimentally established facts, not hopes about
> what history will bring.
Yup, backward looking, a clear trait of the unimaginative...
Paul Stowe
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul Stowe" <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:a9uvif$pkc$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
You are beginning to sound like Spaceman. Be careful, there
is no way back.
> OK, First, those have NOTHING to say about Maxwell's theory. Second,
> didn't you know that the equations developed by Maxwell's based upon
> his theory WAS the impetus for LET/SR? OOW, Maxwell's equations ARE
> Lorentz covariant 'right out of the box', as written by Maxwell.
I'm very well aware of that.
Since you seem interested in ether sniffing, I provided some
pointers so you can learn about your hobby.
Dirk Vdm
Bob Kolker
Paul Stowe wrote:
>
> In article <3CC2B55C...@attbi.com>,
> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >MarkK wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> And how do they manage to stay at c ? Or are you saying they do
> >> because they do and that's that?
> >
> > A fact is a fact whether or not one knows a cause for it. Science is
> > ultimately based on facts.
>
> No, science is ultimately about explaining & quantifying the world we
> inhabit.
Quantifying and predicting the outcome of experiments. Our
"explanations" are hypotheses. If you state a cause for something, then
it can be asked what is the cause of the cause etc. Since we cannot
operate with infinite regresses we get back to something we * assert *
is a cause, but we cannot prove it since that would give us an infinite
regress. Result: we have to start some where and say such and such is so
because we measured it that way.
Result: we never really provide causes. We formulate hypotheses from
which we make predictions. If the experiments supports the prediction
all well and good. If not we have a bad theory and we must try something
else.
Bob Kolker
Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>> In article <3CC2B55C...@attbi.com>,
>> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> MarkK wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And how do they manage to stay at c ? Or are you saying they do
>>>> because they do and that's that?
>>>
>>> A fact is a fact whether or not one knows a cause for it. Science is
>>> ultimately based on facts.
>>
>> No, science is ultimately about explaining & quantifying the world we
>> inhabit.
>
> Quantifying and predicting the outcome of experiments. Our "explanations"
> are hypotheses. If you state a cause for something, then it can be asked
> what is the cause of the cause etc. Since we cannot operate with infinite
> regresses we get back to something we *assert* is a cause, but we cannot
> prove it since that would give us an infinite regress. Result: we have to
> start some where and say such and such is so because we measured it that
> way.
Faulty logic... While it is quite true one cannot drill down with infinite
regress, it is untrue that this is alway necessary. Also it is quite
acceptable to, at some point in cycle stop and say, ya'know, we just don't
know yet...
> Result: we never really provide causes. We formulate hypotheses from
> which we make predictions. If the experiments supports the prediction
> all well and good. If not we have a bad theory and we must try something
> else.
I would say we formulate explanations, and far to often, many accept them as
unquestionable gospel. I can state with 'absolute' certainty that the Sun
will set and rise tommorrow morning. Tommorrow I'll get back on the computer
and claim victory, but BFD. Do I need any other basis for my claim, sure
butI think everybody is quite confortable with the established explanation
and that, in fact it is 'True' beyond ANY reasonable doubt. So what causes
the Sun to set and then rise, the rotation of the Earth. We need go NO
FARTHER in explaining that particular item. So see, it's NOT Turtles all the
way down...
Paul Stowe
Sergey Karavashkin
(jeff...@howamazing.com) wrote:
> Right now, these earth-based gravity-wave "microphones" are just picking up …<
Microphones  these are fine things. If only we add a trifle
 an understanding, what is gravity. Noises fill the space, and
surely some or other noises you will catch. Anyway, a very expensive
experiment with crystallic detectors in two mines located at different
ends of Earth gave no result. The same with Einstein's experiments.
When Einstein has put an observer into a closed vagon and stated that
the vagon's acceleration is identical to an arising gravity field, and
on this basis he concluded that gravitation and inertial masses are
identical (instead Newton's clear mathematical definition), I would
like to note that in gravity field the vagon and observer would "fall"
with the same acceleration, and the passenger will rise. And as
everyone knows, with acceleration the passenger would be pressed into
the chair. This is the difference between the thought experiments and
reality. The same one can analyse any of Einstein's thought
experiments or others, which he took as advantageous for him. So if
one thinks of experimental check, well more efficient would be not
jump over a few stages, but to carry out a sequential rigorous
analysis, beginning just with the beginning.
****************
jeff...@howamazing.com wrote:
> There is, of course, so much more, but this column is at its length limit. If you're unhappy with aether ideas, well, you can always take the foam over the fluid. But I wouldn't even do that with a glass of beer<
Bob Kolker wrote:
> Good man! Have you noticed that theories which do not assume an aether of any kind are successful. Why is that? If aether were necessary for the science wouldn't we have noticed the deficiency by now?
Aether is like God. There is no direct evidence for it. It is accepted
as a metaphysical or an aesthetic necessity about knowing what Nature
IS. But we cannot know what Nature IS. We can only know what we
perceive and do the best we can patching our perceptions into a
coherent story which gives us good predictions.
I completely agree with your approach to beer and other foaming
goodies<
Patrick wrote:
>Aether, Aether everywhere, but not a drop to drink. Nothing is "real"
in physics but numbers arbitrarily assigned to event pairs<
You all are right, say bravo to each other!
Only noting one trifle. The non-aetheric theories enable one to any
suppositions, even fully absurd in the view of logic, physics and
mathematics. Paper is a very tolerant thing. While the aether is not,
so it is boresome for many scientists. But note, Einstein began with
denying the aether, but finished with its accepting, even if
phenomenologically. Otherwise he simply couldn't in presence of
gravity fields, both in inertial and non-inertial reference systems.
So, if speaking of popularity of non-aetheric and pseudo-aetheric
theories, their nature is the same as the beer foam: wait two minutes
 and where is it? Because the foam is the same beer, only very
rarefied. A great bulk but nothing to drink.
But when the foam is over, it appears that with good old classical
concepts, taking the aether into account, one can advance very well.
For example, already 12 years ago we obtained the longitudinal EM wave
in a free space; 6 years ago we obtained the transversal acoustic
wave. And we know well what we will do the next. While these
relativistic gentlemen get confused in their assumptions and
contradictions. And endeavour to "clear" their confusion, substituting
the concepts. But for sure you will agree with me, the subsided foam
without beer is not Beer.
So let's raise our glasses, and before enjoy our Beer, let's blow the
foam, as real connoisseurs do!
Sergey
pst...@ix.netcom.com
>> Dirac was a closet aetherist. As for anti-particles, they're in Maxwell's
>> model...
>
> Cite Please.
I now took the little time necessary to look this up see:
http://www.blavatsky.net/confirm/ev/ether/ether.htm
Citations,...
In 1954 P.A.M. Dirac, a Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1933, said,
"The aetherless basis of physical theory may have reached
the end of its capabilities and we see in the aether a
new hope for the future."
While Dirac was not able to develop the mathematics as he would have liked to,
we note this further observation on his activities:
In 1957, however, the Nobel physicist P. A. M. Dirac asked (as the title of a paper),
"Is there an ether?" He answered affirmatively, and since then other atomic
scientists have suggested that the ether may be defined as an energy-rich subquantic
medium composed of neutrinos, pervading all space, interpenetrating all matter, and
acting as the common denominator in all particle reactions. The question is still
being debated. (Pole Shift by John White p 54)...
Also see:
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/sst97.pdf
I will presume to sources will satisfy you...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker
In short, good old quantum foam. I suggest that there are so many
aethers as to render the term meaningless.
But I do thank you for your efforts.
Bob Kolker
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker
pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/sst97.pdf
>
> I will presume to sources will satisfy you...
Yes and no. This is not the aether of Michaelson and Morley, nor is it
the aether of Maxwell. It seems that everyone has his own version of
aether. I would put it to you that the term is so ill defined as to be
meaningless and useless. The question is, is spacetime empty? In a way
it is and in a way it isn't. If you think of space being full of fields,
then these might as well be the aether.
Call it aether, all it potato. Define it mathematically, make a
definitive prediction and see if an experiment verifies the prediction.
Has anyone done that lately? In the absence of a definite quantitative
prediction that is not made by other theories or made incorrectly by
other theories, the idea is useless and meaningless. Only things that
lead to testable predication count. All else is wind.
Bob Kolker
pst...@ix.netcom.com
> Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>>> In article <3CC2030C...@asu.edu>,
>>> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> MarkK wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CC1839B...@attbi.com>...
>>>>>> jeff...@howamazing.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is, of course, so much more, but this column is at its length
>>>>>>> limit. If you're unhappy with aether ideas, well, you can always
>>>>>>> take the foam over the fluid. But I wouldn't even do that with a
>>>>>>> glass of beer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good man! Have you noticed that theories which do not assume an
>>>>>> aether of any kind are successful. Why is that? If aether were
>>>>>> necessary for the science wouldn't we have noticed the deficiency
>>>>>> by now?
>>>>>
>>>>> and reality.
>>>>
>>>> Prove it! Facts are provable, right?
>>>
>>> Yup... I'll give you the same level of 'proof' that exist for many
>>> other well accepted concepts, how's that.
>>
>> This ought to be good.
>
> OK, here's the deal. You give us 'proof' of let's say the Higgs, lay it
> all out in a logical manner and provide the experimental evidence for
> same. I will then do the same for the aether. Thus we can then compare
> the proofs and see which one holds more water. You're right, this ought
> to be good...
Hmmm, the silence is deafening... I figured that, when asked to put up,
Reany would shut up. Can't do the Higgs, how about gluons..., or perhaps,
my all time favorite, virtual photons :):):) I want to see more direct
'proof' of any of those than exists for the aether medium.
Yup, thought so...
Paul Stowe
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
This statement is logically flawed... That's like saying there's so many
different types of manifestations of physical media (gases, liquids, solids,
plasmas, inviscid, viscous, turbulent... etc.) as to render that term
meaningless.
> But I do thank you for your efforts.
You're welcome...
Paul Stowe
Patrick Reany
pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's completely irrelevant whether or not it's presently
> >>>>> "unnecessary" for "science". Fact is it's necessary for nature
> >>>>> and reality.
> >>>>
> >>>> Prove it! Facts are provable, right?
> >>>
> >>> Yup... I'll give you the same level of 'proof' that exist for many
> >>> other well accepted concepts, how's that.
> >>
> >> This ought to be good.
> >
> > OK, here's the deal. You give us 'proof' of let's say the Higgs, lay it
> > all out in a logical manner and provide the experimental evidence for
> > same. I will then do the same for the aether. Thus we can then compare
> > the proofs and see which one holds more water. You're right, this ought
> > to be good...
>
> Hmmm, the silence is deafening... I figured that, when asked to put up,
> Reany would shut up. Can't do the Higgs, how about gluons..., or perhaps,
> my all time favorite, virtual photons :):):) I want to see more direct
> 'proof' of any of those than exists for the aether medium.
>
I offer no proofs of anything "real." They're not
needed. It's all imagination! Models only have
to act real, not BE real. Same for any one of the
12 billion ether models too.
Patrick.
Paul Stowe
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
Oh Patrick, you're such a lightweight... Why do you bother? If you 'truly
believe' that everything is just imagination, then sleep peacefully in your
Matrix and quit letting your 'imagination' aggravate you so much :)
Sweet dreams...
Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker
pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
> You're welcome...
Define aether, once and for all.
After you define it (by stating its physical properties in quantitative
terms) make a prediction that no aether free theory can make. O.K.?
Bob Kolker
EL
> In article <3CC2030C...@asu.edu>,
> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
> > Prove it! Facts are provable, right?
>
> Yup... I'll give you the same level of 'proof' that exist for many other
> well accepted concepts, how's that.
>
<snip>
>
> Actually every particle of 'matter' consists of aether. Thus
> your statement waxes poetic...
>
<snip>
> > Why does it matter to you people? You people treat ether like
> > the next best thing to GOD. Why do you give a damn about the
> > ether concept?
>
> Reverse the question, why do so many 'give a damn' about there
> having to BE none...
>
> Paul Stowe
[EL]
Dear Paul, with the exception of very few posters I seldom read, I
came to conclude that the majority are amateurs and pretenders.
Not for enumeration but as an example, JeffMo would take logic to be
his last judge, you too are very respectable and resourceful.
The arguments thrown in your way has nothing to do with either logic
or science, it is pure religion.
The most incredible observation I made, is that the morons have
deluded themselves to be scientists, and to affirm the lie, they must
attack the truly knowledgeable scientists to defend the illusion they
created about themselves. Also Alun Williams is quite fair and many
other Juniors are quite good, like Mark Cavin and Lee.
The criterion with which I judge one is his productive argument within
common sense, logic and an extent of scientific foundation.
The Usenet is littered with parrots and academicians who were
book-worms.
Many can recite for you the books, but they have no clue on the
physical reality of what they recite.
All the upper class scientists admitted that there must be a medium to
carry the vectors between source and destination when the time of
emission is t_0 and the time of interaction is t_n where t_n - t_0 =/=
0.
The bad thing is that there are some loud voices with misconceptions
and misinterpretations and have many followers following them like
lemmings.
So do not expect an intelligent response from a lemming, only
affirmative stubborn claims, and "go read the book" and "Mr. X said
so".
I hunger for battle with someone who has the knowledge to argue my
claims, but when I find one, we are usually in agreement. :-)
What a pity! :-)
Kindest regards.
EL
EL
> I offer no proofs of anything "real." They're not
> needed. It's all imagination! Models only have
> to act real, not BE real. Same for any one of the
> 12 billion ether models too.
>
> Patrick.
[EL]
So you are dreaming that we MUST BE dreaming too within your dream and
according to your dream.
Yet, 'we' within your dream are constructs of your dream and it is up
to you to dream us in the way you prefer.
*
In my dreams you do not even exist.
*
In my awareness, I can tell that a man who claims that there are "12
billion ether models" is exaggerating profoundly.
Why?
You fail to count them as much as you fail to comprehend them.
The ancient minds have evolved, and the vocabulary of words did change
in parallel to the meanings that changed.
Aether was never the issue of a name, and the true issue is whether
there is a medium holding the vectors at an intermediate instance
between cause and effect.
Your dream is less than adequate to ponder this reality.
You must first wake up, then we can teach you how to find your way
between the three different events.
One event is the cause of a vector field.
Another event is the effect of a vector field.
An infinitude of events are in between the previous two events, so
pick any one as a sample and the third critical one.
What is it that holds the physical reality between these distinctive
moments of action?
Not photons and the diarrhea of particulated billiard balls, which
are points and not points, like dimensionless yet with a wave length
and all.
I am talking about the magnetic field and the electric field within
the inductive phenomena.
Maxwell was working on that, and he unified those fields, then and
only then the electromagnetic photon concept could ever be born.
Wake up from your dream and meditate on the distance between the
interacting charges (static charges) NO PARTICLES IN PROPAGATION.
What holds the vectors of the field between the positive charge and
the negative charge in attraction?
What holds the vectors of the field between the same type of charges
in repulsion?
What is the field a field of?
Yes it has a direction and a magnitude, but what IS IT?
EL.
MarkK
Waste of time, since physics is way too confused with it's own
definitions.
Lets see if YOU can define "space", "spacetime", "field", "photon",
"particle", "vacuum", "empty" and "gravity" for us.
Aether is already proven, you are just using incorrect language so you
can remain in denial.
Mark K.
Bob Kolker
MarkK wrote:
>
> Waste of time, since physics is way too confused with it's own
> definitions.
> Lets see if YOU can define "space", "spacetime", "field", "photon",
> "particle", "vacuum", "empty" and "gravity" for us.
> Aether is already proven, you are just using incorrect language so you
> can remain in denial.
Where proven? Give cite complete with experimental verifications. Not
interested in amateur theories. I am interested in experimental evidence
that clearly differentiates aether theories from non aetherial theories.
Can you do this? If so do, if not hush yo' mouf.
Bob Kolker
> Mark K.
MarkK
"Bent" space (the word "space" is incorrectly used in physics),
permittivity and permeability are some. Time is also evidence of a
medium, which prevents things from happening instantly.
These are all clear properties of an aether-like substance , not
"spacetime" magic properties of emptiness.
Your turn to give the definitions, chicken.
Mark K.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
Gregory L. Hansen
MarkK <markk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:<3CC66E36...@attbi.com>...
>> pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > You're welcome...
>>
>> Define aether, once and for all.
>>
>> After you define it (by stating its physical properties in quantitative
>> terms) make a prediction that no aether free theory can make. O.K.?
>>
>> Bob Kolker
>
>Waste of time, since physics is way too confused with it's own
>definitions.
>Lets see if YOU can define "space",
Where stuff happens.
>"spacetime",
Space with a fourth coordinate for time, that obeys the invariance of the
interval.
>"field",
A generalization of force laws.
>"photon",
And electromagnetic quantum.
>"particle",
A set of properties like mass, charge, and energy that stay together.
>"vacuum",
A region with pressure lower than typical atmospheric pressures.
>"empty"
Devoid of whatever it was you were looking for. E.g. and emty beer can.
>and "gravity" for us.
The Earth sucks.
>Aether is already proven, you are just using incorrect language so you
>can remain in denial.
>Mark K.
It's not proven, it's just words that you're hanging on to pre-existing
aether-free theories. I'll take an aether more seriously if a theory was
advanced that began with properties of the aether and then derived the
behaviors we see, rather than retrofitting an aether to relativity or
something.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
au...@detroit.freenet.org
that's why it's called the "ether", it's "ethereal" as defined in the
dictionary.
the whole vehicle (the whole universe) is supposed to have been the "ether",
and the meaning matches that of "ethereal" in the dictionary.
what's so hard to comprehend about that?
it's easy.
if you don't believe me, look at the stars sometime good at night in the
summer,
it's ethereal.
i don't understand why the concept is pooh-poohed and deprecated by
physicists,
because the meaning matches the common "ethereal" definition in the
dictionary,
other than the fact (is) that they're not functionally sane.
some amateur physicists, like some amateur politicians,
are insane.
--
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
au...@detroit.freenet.org all is meow when said in kitten
mark brown perfect peace be upon you
forever salami/salam
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
===== snipp! =====
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.02042...@posting.google.com...
eshal
"MarkK" <markk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e7b962f.02042...@posting.google.com...
Heya Mark... I think you could reason that one must realise that if the
aether
is so like spacetime... then it should be a readily absorbability either
way.
If one theory describes the world with an assemblage of unrelatable
components while the other theory gives the same set of predictions
but relates the various actions to a single underlying geometric operation,
then we are not dealing with inertia...
we are dealing with insight and vision....
(-: em..
EL
> In article <6e7b962f.02042...@posting.google.com>,
> MarkK <markk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >news:<3CC66E36...@attbi.com>...
> >> pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You're welcome...
> >>
> >> Define aether, once and for all.
> >>
> >> After you define it (by stating its physical properties in quantitative
> >> terms) make a prediction that no aether free theory can make. O.K.?
> >>
> >> Bob Kolker
> >
> >Waste of time, since physics is way too confused with it's own
> >definitions.
> >Lets see if YOU can define "space",
>
> Where stuff happens.
Writing may happen on paper.
Swimming may happen in water.
Running may happen on land.
Smoking happens by blowing hot air into a less 'hot' air from a very
hot air blower. :-)
It seems that space, following all the preceding facts, is most
probably a medium, a Primedium.
>
> >"spacetime",
>
> Space with a fourth coordinate for time, that obeys the invariance of the
> interval.
[EL]
Which is a relativistic observational criterion added to a physical
reality.
For anything to be defined to exist in space it must endure the
observational time, even if it did not change a relativistic
coordinate over time.
The reality of the geometry, which endures over time is inseparable
from the reality of the chaotic medium in which that existence may
endure.
Any relational order among a sub-group of members in an infinite
chaotic set, is enough for that group to emerge from the background to
the foreground as an existing entity.
This never infers that the substance of what exists as a foreground
is different from the substance of what exists not yet IS the
background medium in which the foreground IS.
Hence, spacetime is also a very strong evidence of a primordial
medium, the Primedium.
>
> >"field",
>
> A generalization of force laws.
[EL]
In this generalization, we see that the laws governing the concept of
a force leads to vector force fields, and that is because forces must
have a direction and a magnitude to be described.
The geometry of the space in which a force vector may act boils down
to shells and boundaries, where the mathematical notion of a plane is
most adequate to formulate the pressure of forces on an area as the
potential along the normal to the plane per unit area of the shell
containing the vector force field. When the boundary is displaced as a
consequence of that pressure, work is done.
The field must have an 'owner', which is usually the frame of
reference point of origin of the coordinate system in which the
analysis of the field takes place.
This is what can be conceptually abstracted as the *cause* of the
field.
That field does not exist until we observe its effects of interaction
at a point remote from the point of origin.
Whatever is being affected in the field is the *target of effect*.
The field is the abstraction of the medium, which fills the distance
separating the cause of the field and the target of the effect.
This infers that we may logically conclude that the separating
distance is holding the directions and magnitudes of that field, which
is ultimately the properties of a medium, the Primedium.
>
> >"photon",
>
> And electromagnetic quantum.
[EL]
Where the quantum is a quantum of Planck's unit of action, which is
the product of energy and time.
Action is identical with the moment of momentum or the impulse of the
moment of a force.
The concept of a unified electromagnetic field was proved by Maxwell
while unifying the electric field and the magnetic field.
Thus, a photon is conceptually an abstraction of fields propagating in
spacetime, in quanta of action.
This boils down to the fact that photons are particular waves of order
emerging in a chaotic background medium, periodically and constantly.
Therefore, photons must propagate in a medium, Primedium.
>
> >"particle",
>
> A set of properties like mass, charge, and energy that stay together.
[EL]
A particle is a particulate, founded on a part of a whole.
When the whole is infinite and chaotic, the particulation is founded
on a random endurance of order, distinguishing a part from the whole
within the whole.
Thus, a particle must be a subset of whatever it was distinguished
from and within.
This is to say that any particle must be a subset of order in a
chaotic background medium, the Primedium.
>
> >"vacuum",
>
> A region with pressure lower than typical atmospheric pressures.
[EL]
Vacuum is historically founded on evacuation.
The best method of obtaining vacuum is by constructing changeable
volume, such as that of a cylinder and piston, where the piston moving
along the axis of the cylinder can change the volume.
By constructing one way valves, the volume could be compressed to Zero
exhaling all matter from the volume, and by means of pulling the
piston to expand the volume we have a closed valve that would not let
gasses back in and the volume expands under the pulling force which
must overcome the pressure falling on the piston from the external
side of the evacuated volume.
Therefore, vacuum is by definition a contained volume from which
matter was removed, hence a low pressure, which tends to null (The
significant level of evacuation is a variant).
>
> >"empty"
>
> Devoid of whatever it was you were looking for. E.g. and emty beer can.
[EL]
Emptiness, is defined by a boundary and a criterion.
Any boundary containing not any of a specific criterion is empty of
that criterion.
The abstract absolute emptiness, is the empty set, where the boundary
may be closed, open or half closed and half open, but a criterion is
specified to be not specified.
Therefore, such an absolute emptiness is the hypothetical absence of
everything from no particular frame of reference, where references are
impossible by definition due to the absence of any reference as well.
This state of absolute emptiness is equivalent to the abstract mental
concept of impossible or imponderable.
By definition, it is impossible for an absolute emptiness to could
have ever been, because of the absence of any ponderable causes of any
change of that state to have been.
This is yet another proof that infinity must be full of a medium, the
Primedium.
>
> >and "gravity" for us.
>
> The Earth sucks.
[EL]
Gravity is a cumulative phenomenon of oscillatory infinitesimal
changes in spacetime groups of order.
The tension of the Primedium fluctuates under any and all such
changes.
The interaction of the fields of tensions, nulls the in-between, hence
the collapse of the distance manifested in condensation.
Although the rate of change is primordially constant, the opposing
forces may affect the net results of motion under gravitational
condensations.
Extremely high densities of matter, such as solids of iridium shall
seek the centers of the geometries, while the lightest densities shall
seek the peripheries of the geometries.
Primedium allows gravitational interactions to change coordinates of
ordered geometries by displacement through replacement in Primedium.
>
> >Aether is already proven, you are just using incorrect language so you
> >can remain in denial.
> >Mark K.
>
> It's not proven, it's just words that you're hanging on to pre-existing
> aether-free theories. I'll take an aether more seriously if a theory was
> advanced that began with properties of the aether and then derived the
> behaviors we see, rather than retrofitting an aether to relativity or
> something.
[EL]
Quite a respectable opinion sir.
Kind regards.
EL
Patrick Reany
"NOS...@NOSPAM.YOU" wrote:
> the universe is ethereal,
> that's why it's called the "ether", it's "ethereal" as defined in the
> dictionary.
>
> t
Proof by dictionary!
Patrick
MarkK
How about you quit starting a new tread for each of your banal little replies.
Look up the word "space" in the dictionary and learn how to to speak.
Mark K.
Bob Kolker
So you say. Now where is the proof of your assertions.
Where has the existence of a space filling medium ever been detected
experimentally. As far as I know all of the experiments designed to find
aether came out null. MMX, Trouton-Noble etc. etc..
Is there one I missed?
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
> Where has the existence of a space filling medium ever been detected
> experimentally.
Light has a speed limit.
What limits it?
magic?
Patrick Reany
Spaceman wrote:
Yes, magic.
Patrick
Spaceman
> Yes, magic.
In your thoughts, yes.
eshal
"Spaceman" <Spac...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
news:ucg5f44...@corp.supernews.com...
Bingo!!! Of coarse.... how did we ever miss it.... here we are, looking
for mechanical causations and sequential operations, and it was
sitting there right in front of us all the time.... its magic!
No need to waste your time in folly to draw an unbroken connection
between all systems and operations.
There is none. It is all magic. Spacetime magic regulates the speed of the
photon and any emf. Doesn't matter how fast you are going, light is
always cee.
Gravitino magic sucks particles together! It can't be shielded and
has absolutely what so ever no electromagnetic interaction with the
composition of the material it is interacting with..
...and inertial magic... which makes things push back when you push them.
The cute thing about inertial magic, is the harder you them, the greater
their determination to push back.
a'hem... space man.... you can take your helmet off you know...
the air is safe to breath. (-:
em
eshal
news:<aa6l7j$fp7$2...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu>...
> > In article <6e7b962f.02042...@posting.google.com>,
> > MarkK <markk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > >news:<3CC66E36...@attbi.com>...
> > >> pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
ssssnip.
Very good El....
Spaceman
Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
> pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> You're welcome...
>
> Define aether, once and for all.
It is highly unlikely that any rational objective definition will
suit you given your demonstrated propensity to behave irrationally
on this topic. However, the aether is, and always has been, those
physical properties associated with otherwise apparently empty space
that is manifested by the ability of one physical object to induce
affects on other physical objects that are otherwise in physical
isolation from each other. This easily observed 'connectivity'
is best, and as far as can be discerned, only explainable in terms
of some form of physical continuity. There are in observational
science few known processes that manifest the requisite observable
behavior. Other that the general mathematical form that describe
all physical media (Continuum Mechanics) there exists no other
viable process that matches the observed manifestations of so-called
'action at a distance effects'. Thus one has a choice, accept the
weight of observations and its clearly suggested conclusion, or
deny this apparent commonality and claim that, somehow, for just
so-called empty space, this similarity is just a unrelated
coincidence.
In application of Ockham's Razor, the Razor cuts clearly in favor of
the physical medium interpretation.
> After you define it (by stating its physical properties in quantitative
> terms) make a prediction that no aether free theory can make. O.K.?
In the seven years that I have participated in these newsgroups I
have provided all of your requested information. I'll summarize several
elements predicted by aether theory that cannot be found in current
aether free theory.
1. The thermal-electric coupling owes it very existence to the aether
properties and those properties give us a new, until now unknown
relationship of:
k = h/qc
Where k is Boltzmann's constant, h Planck's constant, q elemental
Charge, and c light speed in MKSC units.
2. The aether, when interacting with matter to create the gravitational
potential, results in induction heating in a gravitating mass which
is manifested by a thermal emission (per unit area) of a magnitude
defined by the equation,
w = zM/r(1 – e^-Ht)
Where z is the aetherial power dissipation factor for matter having
a value of 2.4E-19 m/sec^3, M is the mass, r the radius (spherical),
H the thermo-dynamical response term for the body, and t the time
that the body has been in existence. As t -> oo, the (1 - e) term
goes to unity leaving simply w = zM/r...
3. Using the same derivation process that lead equation #2 the aetherial
drag for linear motion can be quantified. This leads to the equation,
a = dv
Where a is the deceleration in m/sec^2, d is the drag factor in 1/sec
(7.05E-14), and v is the linear velocity of the body in m/sec.
I have also clearly defined the very nature of the property we call
charge and demonstrated mathematically it very essence. All of these
have been posted in these newsgroups over the years and most details
and derivations can be found on websites. The full derivation of the
gravitational terms above can also be found the the new book of Matt
Edwards titled "Pushing Gravity".
So, not only have I defined the density, modulus, viscosity of the aether
I have clearly demonstrated that by utilizing these aetherial definitions
one can greatly simplify the equations of state and reduce all constants
to four,
1 - a quantum of mass
2 - an interaction parameter
3 - the medium's propagation velocity [c]
4 - and the vortex field geometric coupling factor
Further, given that the very nature of elemental charge is a harmonic oscillator,
(in units of kg/sec) I can show a clear relationship beteewn the observed CMB
and the base harmonic state of the electron, as follows
Given the QM relationship
E = h{nu}
And that the charge to mass ratio q/m for an electron yields the harmonic
frequency of this state such that
nu = 1.6E-19/9.1E-31 ~= 1.8E+11 Hz
Now, go look up the Black body temperature for ~1.76E+11 Hz... You'll find
it to be, surprise, surprise, 2.8 degrees Kelvin.
Paul Stowe
wbj
Let's get one thing straight right at the start-the Michelson-Morley
experiment did not prove the nonexistence of the aether ("aether" being the
older spelling, of course, but I prefer it to "ether").
---------------------
In responce to above from BillJ
I like ether spelling more to. Only problem is means somthing else as well.
Thats only reason why I use name aether myself. Maby either.
BillJ
-------------------------
wbj
wbj <a...@net.com> wrote in article <01c1ec2a$1f3a98c0$1c61a3d1@comp1>...
Or eether
ather - nope
to dam corny.
Need a usable name.
I know there is a substance and will be proven one day,so need to figure
out a usable name.
spacial substance - to long.............................................
space ether - nope
etherspace - maby
------------------------------------
----------------------
>
Patrick Reany
MarkK wrote:
Why?
Patrick
EL
A fascinating post. :-)
EL
Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<aaak9e$in4$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>...
Bob Kolker
wbj wrote:
>
> Let's get one thing straight right at the start-the Michelson-Morley
> experiment did not prove the nonexistence of the aether ("aether" being the
> older spelling, of course, but I prefer it to "ether").
What do you call it when the experiment based on the existence of X
predicts a result not observed. Does that not cast, at least doubt, on
the existence of X.
FAPP aether is a substance that fills all space in such a way that no
matter how we move we are always at rest with respect to this magic
stuff. Ain't science wonderful?
Bob Kolker
EL
[EL]
Why not?
You ask the man to define his concepts.
He asks you to look up a dictionary for the common accepted concept.
You complain and mock him by starting a thread 'Proof by dictionary!'
Yes sir, a dictionary is ultimately the consensus of people in a given
period of time of the prevailing meaning of words.
If that was not the function of a dictionary then let us hear your
*F*U*C*K* opinion.
The reckless gang of reckless fantasy pseudo-physicists may choose to
alter the meaning held by the consensus to confuse them and
fraudulently pretend to have an intellectual superiority when people
do not understand.
*
People do not understand because what is being proposed by that gang,
is basically inconsistent and contradictory to elementary logic.
*
They are neither superior nor worth shit.
*-Show me the lives they saved.
*-Show me the industry they built.
*-Show me the food they produced.
*-Show me the shelters they erected.
*-Show me the luxury they offered for people to improve the standard
of their living.
You are defending morons, frauds and gangsters who are social
parasites.
Don't waste any more of our precious time.
EL
EL
> wbj wrote:
> >
> > Let's get one thing straight right at the start-the Michelson-Morley
> > experiment did not prove the nonexistence of the aether ("aether" being the
> > older spelling, of course, but I prefer it to "ether").
>
>
> What do you call it when the experiment based on the existence of X
> predicts a result not observed.
I call it a flowed experiment.
Mice usually eat cheese.
We put a piece pf Emental delicious cheese right in front of the nose
of a mouse, which we just tied its four legs with a string to the bars
of the cage.
The result is that the mouse does not eat the cheese.
Conclusions:
The cheese is not cheese! :-)
The cheese does not exist!
The mouse does not exit!
The *scientist* never existed. ;-)
>Does that not cast, at least doubt, on
> the existence of X.
[EL]
No, it casts doubt on the existence of science.
>
> FAPP aether is a substance that fills all space in such a way that no
> matter how we move we are always at rest with respect to this magic
> stuff. Ain't science wonderful?
>
> Bob Kolker
[EL]
You have an infinite set of scrambled LEGO.
Neither the coordinates nor the time of any piece shall make any sense
in chaos.
A cause begins to set order between pieces by relating them in time
and space.
A construct takes shape and existence emerges from nothingness.
You are not at rest with chaos, you just have no clue where you are
and it makes no difference because it is infinite.
Any where you shall find a piece at any time to use for your
construct.
You cannot be at rest with *respect to* chaos, because chaos has no
marks to take for reference to become a *with respect to* frame.
Light propagates in Primedium by lending order to chaos at a constant
rate of change in magnitude and direction like any ponderable wave in
a medium.
Relativity is concerned about *anchors* in spacetime, and when there
is no such anchor we fail to relate.
To fail to relate is not the same as to relate at rest.
What your mistake is, is that you consider that whatever is not
relatively at motion must be relatively at rest.
You never considered that there is a state in which relativity fails
profoundly.
Chaos.
Enough said.
EL
gravity jones
OBSERVE BUT HAVE ANOTHER NAME FOR --NO NOT NEUTRINOS...SINCE THEY DO NOT
EXIST EVEN IN SPITE OF AN AWARDED NOBEL PRIZE....BUT WHAT AETHER REALLY
WOULD SEEM TO BE IS WHAT EVER IS LEFT OVER AFTER THE APPARENT MASS OF
ELECTRONS AND POSITRONS NEUTRALIZE EACH OTHER INTO A PAIR OF GAMA RAYS
AND SOME UNKNOWN CORE OR CORE ENTITIES...ONE OR TWO. BUT WHAT WOULD
THESE BE? NOT SPINNING IN EITHER DIRECTION IS THE MILLENIUM TWAIN
THESIS..AND I AM INCLINED TO AGREE. NO WHAT EVER THE AETHER IS ...IT
SHOULD BE RECONSITUTED WITH A CERTAIN QUANTITY OF EM OR JUST ONE GAMMA
RAY AND THEN AN ELECTRON OR POSITRON SHOULD BECOME DETECTABLE.
TO FIND OUT WHAT I KNOW TO BE TRUE NOW JUST GO BACK INTO YOUR PHYSICS
BOOKS AND LOOK FOR SOMETHING THAT COULD VERY WELL BE THIS EACTLY BUT
WITH A DIFFERENT NAME.
DETECTING AETHER MIGHT BE IMPOSSIBLE BUT IT MIGHT BE DEDUCED AS
SOMETHING THAT BECOMES ACTIVATED OR DEACTIVATED TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO
NEUTRALIZE A N ELECTRON WITH A POSITRON.
Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
> pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <3CC66E36...@attbi.com>,
>> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're welcome...
>>>
>>> Define aether, once and for all.
>>
>> It is highly unlikely that any rational objective definition will
>> suit you given your demonstrated propensity to behave irrationally
>> on this topic. However, the aether is, and always has been, those
>> physical properties associated with otherwise apparently empty space
>> that is manifested by the ability of one physical object to induce
>> affects on other physical objects that are otherwise in physical
>> isolation from each other.
>
> You are talking about an observable not a cause.
It seems to me that 'causes' result in observations...
> What is aether. C an you, or will you answer it. Can you give a
> mathematical characterization of your aether that leads to a testable
> prediction?
You're either denser than I can imagine, or irrational beyond recovery...
Simply put, asked AND answered...
> Is there any independent (independent of the hypothesis of aether)
> verification that your aether exists, or is it only a hypothetical or
> mathematical abstraction used to model and correlate observations and
> make predictions. For example, electromagnetic fields fall into this
> category. A field is a vector or scalar valued functions defined one
> compact domains of space obeying some differentiability constraints. In
> short, fields (which may or may not be physically real) appear in the
> theories as constructs. Is aether any different from this? If it is a
> hypothetical entity, then theories not using it succeed in making
> predictions, so it is not a * necessary * hypothesis. To show your
> aether hypothesis is * true *, you must show that * any * contrary or
> contradictory hypothesis must lead either to a frank logical
> contradiction or imply something that is false to fact. Have you done
> this?
>
> Yes or no.
As always, both faulty logic and shallow reasoning. What else is to be
said until you realize that sometimes one does not need to describe the
details of frame, wiring, plumbing, sheetrock, and finish to fully
describe a room in a house if all needs to do IS describe the the
dimensions, layout and furnishings...
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <aaagmg$hns$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>,
> <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <3CC66E36...@attbi.com>,
>> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're welcome...
>>>
>>> Define aether, once and for all.
>>
>> It is highly unlikely that any rational objective definition will
>> suit you given your demonstrated propensity to behave irrationally
>> on this topic. However, the aether is, and always has been, those
>> physical properties associated with otherwise apparently empty space
>> that is manifested by the ability of one physical object to induce
>> affects on other physical objects that are otherwise in physical
>> isolation from each other. This easily observed 'connectivity'
>
> I n other words, whatever happens, we'll say it's the aether?
Quite sarcastic and extremely oversimplified, but yes, isn't this what
the original poster stated, quite clearly. It's not Turtles all the
way down, it's the aether medium...
Paul Stowe
Patrick Reany
Paul Stowe wrote:
> In article <3CC96B4F...@attbi.com>,
> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3CC66E36...@attbi.com>,
> >> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You're welcome...
> >>>
> >>> Define aether, once and for all.
> >>
> >> It is highly unlikely that any rational objective definition will
> >> suit you given your demonstrated propensity to behave irrationally
> >> on this topic. However, the aether is, and always has been, those
> >> physical properties associated with otherwise apparently empty space
> >> that is manifested by the ability of one physical object to induce
> >> affects on other physical objects that are otherwise in physical
> >> isolation from each other.
> >
> > You are talking about an observable not a cause.
>
> It seems to me that 'causes' result in observations...
Then you seem to believe that experience alone
is enough for humans to UNIQUELY determine
TRUE "causes." That is, you believe that physics
is a basis to reverse-engineer reality from
observation.
Is physics ever allowed to use a "made up"
cause in a physical theory?
Patrick
Bob Kolker
However one can establish the existence of the sheetrock etc. etc. by
observation, measurement and experiment. Can you do that with your
aether? Yes or no?
God and the Devil are in the details.
I don't know how seriously I can take anyone who * derives * PI as a
physical quantity by appropriately cooking the constants (yes, I read
you web site and I was underwhelemed by it).
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
Paul Stowe wrote:
>
> Quite sarcastic and extremely oversimplified, but yes, isn't this what
> the original poster stated, quite clearly. It's not Turtles all the
> way down, it's the aether medium...
>
Aether is your version of Turtles. I have no objection to postulating a
hypothetical entity to make a model for predicting effects. I DO object
when it is claimed that this hypothetical entity really honest to god
exists when there is no independent confirmation of its existence.
If you want to claim space is filled with foam or gelatinous goo in
order to make predictions, that is cool. As long as the predictions are
right. Maxwell thought space was filled with hexagonal gear trains and
idler wheels. It did not do him any harm, because all he used were his
equations.
Bob Kolker
> Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker
Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>
> As always, both faulty logic and shallow reasoning. What else is to be
> said until you realize that sometimes one does not need to describe the
> details of frame, wiring, plumbing, sheetrock, and finish to fully
> describe a room in a house if all needs to do IS describe the the
> dimensions, layout and furnishings...
Let me tell you where your view is faulty. You think that it is possible
for a theory to be demonstrated true. This is a practical impossibility.
If a theory predicts an effect, and that effect is verified by
experiment, it does not prove the theory true. To assert such, it so
commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent, a well known form of
incorrect reasoning from standard logic.
You also believe you can infer from a finite number of observations (and
crude observations at that) the total nature of physical reality. Not
so. All we shall ever know about nature is (1) what we perceive and (2)
what our machines tell us, realizing that machine observations are
theory laden and not independent, like raw perception. We cannot go from
a finite number of observations to Truth. In addition to the crudeness
of our senses is the matter of believing that a relation observed in
Nature now, will continue to hold throughout time. This is pure
metaphysical hoo haa. We have no assurance that a law that hold now will
hold later and that a relation that holds Here will hold There. We only
* assume * that our (so-called) physical laws are place and time
independent. And we must make that assumption in order to do science at
all. We also assume the validity of Induction and Abduction more
generally.
The best, the very best we can do is theoretically model the world based
on our perceptions and our intuitive notions of how things work to
produce prediction models that are consistent with observation. That is
it. There ain't no more. We can believe in our models, we can be
comfortable with our models, we can get warm and furry feelings about
our models, but all that will not prove the ultimate Truth of our
models. God knows the Truth and Man knows what Man perceives.
So if you think sound caution and realization of our limitations is
shallow, by all means go on think that. But it won't make what you think
any truer.
Bob Kolker
Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>>
>> As always, both faulty logic and shallow reasoning. What else is to be
>> said until you realize that sometimes one does not need to describe the
>> details of frame, wiring, plumbing, sheetrock, and finish to fully
>> describe a room in a house if all needs to do IS describe the the
>> dimensions, layout and furnishings...
>
> Let me tell you where your view is faulty. You think that it is
> possible for a theory to be demonstrated true. This is a practical
> impossibility.
No, I think that there exists an independent reality, and that this
actual physical reality, being independent, is NOT describable by
'free creations of the human mind'. It is, instead, describable
by applying reasoning to observations and experimentations. It is
thus a 'self guided process' that one is NOT at all free (as in at
the arbitrary whim to) create any explanation. Nature is a puzzle
and, like any puzzle, its pieces fit together only in a certain
fashion, thus it is THIS FACT that will, ultimately prove the only
correct answer. THus there ARE NOT MANY possiblities, there is just
ONE. And this is fixed by nature, independent of humanitys whims.
> If a theory predicts an effect, and that effect is verified by
> experiment, it does not prove the theory true.
How about observations lead to hypotheses as to causes, this leads
to ideas for verification which leads to tests of same, those
that withstand this phase are considered 'viable'. Thus we have
one or more 'possible' pieces to our physical universe puzzle.
However, how the remaining 'viable' causes fix with other observations
will in turn cull these down, leaving at the end of this process,
the ONLY correct answer.
> To assert such, it so commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent,
> a well known form of incorrect reasoning from standard logic.
Don't try to sell me Kantian philosophy...
Reference, http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm
> You also believe you can infer from a finite number of observations
> (and crude observations at that) the total nature of physical reality.
And if you don't get out of the business of science...
> Not so. All we shall ever know about nature is (1) what we perceive
> and (2) what our machines tell us, realizing that machine observations
> are theory laden and not independent, like raw perception. We cannot
> go from a finite number of observations to Truth. In addition to the
> crudeness of our senses is the matter of believing that a relation
> observed in Nature now, will continue to hold throughout time. This
> is pure metaphysical hoo haa. We have no assurance that a law that
> hold now will hold later and that a relation that holds Here will hold
> There. We only * assume * that our (so-called) physical laws are place
> and time independent. And we must make that assumption in order to do
> science at all. We also assume the validity of Induction and Abduction
> more generally.
>
> The best, the very best we can do is theoretically model the world based
> on our perceptions and our intuitive notions of how things work to
> produce prediction models that are consistent with observation. That is
> it. There ain't no more. We can believe in our models, we can be
> comfortable with our models, we can get warm and furry feelings about
> our models, but all that will not prove the ultimate Truth of our
> models. God knows the Truth and Man knows what Man perceives.
>
> So if you think sound caution and realization of our limitations is
> shallow, by all means go on think that. But it won't make what you think
> any truer.
It seems that you don't know metaphysical philosophy even when espouting it...
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
> Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>>
>> As always, both faulty logic and shallow reasoning. What else is to be
>> said until you realize that sometimes one does not need to describe the
>> details of frame, wiring, plumbing, sheetrock, and finish to fully
>> describe a room in a house if all needs to do IS describe the the
>> dimensions, layout and furnishings...
>
> Let me tell you where your view is faulty. You think that it is
> possible for a theory to be demonstrated true. This is a practical
> impossibility.
No, I think that there exists an independent reality, and that this
actual physical reality, being independent, is NOT describable by
'free creations of the human mind'. It is, instead, describable
by applying reasoning to observations and experimentations. It is
thus a 'self guided process' that one is NOT at all free (as in at
the arbitrary whim to) create any explanation. Nature is a puzzle
and, like any puzzle, its pieces fit together only in a certain
fashion, thus it is THIS FACT that will, ultimately prove the only
correct answer. THus there ARE NOT MANY possiblities, there is just
ONE. And this is fixed by nature, independent of humanitys whims.
> If a theory predicts an effect, and that effect is verified by
> experiment, it does not prove the theory true.
How about observations lead to hypotheses as to causes, this leads
to ideas for verification which leads to tests of same, those
that withstand this phase are considered 'viable'. Thus we have
one or more 'possible' pieces to our physical universe puzzle.
However, how the remaining 'viable' causes fix with other observations
will in turn cull these down, leaving at the end of this process,
the ONLY correct answer.
> To assert such, it so commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent,
> a well known form of incorrect reasoning from standard logic.
Don't try to sell me Kantian philosophy...
Reference, http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm
> You also believe you can infer from a finite number of observations
> (and crude observations at that) the total nature of physical reality.
And if you don't get out of the business of science...
> Not so. All we shall ever know about nature is (1) what we perceive
> and (2) what our machines tell us, realizing that machine observations
> are theory laden and not independent, like raw perception. We cannot
> go from a finite number of observations to Truth. In addition to the
> crudeness of our senses is the matter of believing that a relation
> observed in Nature now, will continue to hold throughout time. This
> is pure metaphysical hoo haa. We have no assurance that a law that
> hold now will hold later and that a relation that holds Here will hold
> There. We only * assume * that our (so-called) physical laws are place
> and time independent. And we must make that assumption in order to do
> science at all. We also assume the validity of Induction and Abduction
> more generally.
>
> The best, the very best we can do is theoretically model the world based
> on our perceptions and our intuitive notions of how things work to
> produce prediction models that are consistent with observation. That is
> it. There ain't no more. We can believe in our models, we can be
> comfortable with our models, we can get warm and furry feelings about
> our models, but all that will not prove the ultimate Truth of our
> models. God knows the Truth and Man knows what Man perceives.
>
> So if you think sound caution and realization of our limitations is
> shallow, by all means go on think that. But it won't make what you think
> any truer.
It seems that you don't know metaphysical philosophy even when espouting it...
Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker
Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>
> It seems that you don't know metaphysical philosophy even when espouting it...
I know enough metaphysics to reject it as the swamp gas of the human
intellect.
Naive Realism will do just fine. Anything more is Wretched Excess.
You are a very silly man if you really believe you can reverse engineer
all of physical reality from a finite corpus of perceptual knowledge.
The best we can do is wrap up the facts we know (or anticipate) into a
good story which we hope will be supported by experiment. It simply does
not get any better than that. We are a very clever species and we have
nimble wits and active imaginations, but we should not confuse our
dearest tales with the facts. Facts Rule, Theories Serve.
Bob Kolker
>
> Paul Stowe
MarkK
> Paul Stowe wrote:
> >
> > Quite sarcastic and extremely oversimplified, but yes, isn't this what
> > the original poster stated, quite clearly. It's not Turtles all the
> > way down, it's the aether medium...
> >
>
> Aether is your version of Turtles. I have no objection to postulating a
> hypothetical entity to make a model for predicting effects. I DO object
> when it is claimed that this hypothetical entity really honest to god
> exists when there is no independent confirmation of its existence.
There is.
> If you want to claim space is filled with foam or gelatinous goo in
> order to make predictions, that is cool. As long as the predictions are
> right. Maxwell thought space was filled with hexagonal gear trains and
> idler wheels. It did not do him any harm, because all he used were his
> equations.
>
You are such a usless plonker, Kolky. You are quite happy to believe
in bent emtiness "coz it say so in the book", yet it quite clearly
describes a substance. You are quite happy to believe in the existance
of fields (they have measurable properties) yet you claim empty space
to be empty but have properties. You have logic failure, you are a
parrot, it's a waste of time trying to push your barriers because you
have a limited sheep mentality. You are a follower not a discoverer,
innovator or explorer. You are of no use to aspn-t and physics.
Byeee,
Mark K.
> Bob Kolker
>
> > Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker
MarkK wrote:
>
>
> You are such a usless plonker, Kolky. You are quite happy to believe
> in bent emtiness "coz it say so in the book",
I don't believe in anything because it says so in the book. I believe in
theories that are supported by experiment. Facts Rule, Theories Serve.
Reality is what it is and theories must conform to reality. Whatever
predicts well is my friend and yours.
Bob Kolker
MarkK
No, but it does so, by ascribing magic properties to empty voids.
It alleges that c, permittivity and permeability etc. are caused by
nothing.
The truth is that (as far as present official fizzics is concerned)
the cause of those properties is unknowable , because it is
impossible to derive them from "accepted" concepts. This is why the
outdated "lumpy things whizzing about in a void and interacting
magically at a distance" theory is bound to be updated by a modern
aether theory.
Mark K.
Patrick Reany
MarkK wrote:
What is the ultimate cause?
> The truth is that (as far as present official fizzics is concerned)
> the cause of those properties is unknowable , because it is
> impossible to derive them from "accepted" concepts. This is why the
> outdated "lumpy things whizzing about in a void and interacting
> magically at a distance" theory is bound to be updated by a modern
> aether theory.
>
> Mark K.
>
Is physics ever allowed to model macroscopic matter
as continuous, such as a metal wire, or to model extended
matter as a point mass particle?
Patrick
Bob Kolker
MarkK wrote:
>
> This is why the
> outdated "lumpy things whizzing about in a void and interacting
> magically at a distance" theory is bound to be updated by a modern
> aether theory.
Anytime soon? Is it self to hold my breath till then?
Bob Kolker
Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
Whether one can or cannot is irrelevant if all one has set out to
do is descibe the dimensions, layout and furnishings... But I,
(on strictly philosophical grounds) would agree that to fully descibe
the room they certainly would have to include the building components.
> God and the Devil are in the details.
You're preaching to the choir here :)
> I don't know how seriously I can take anyone who *derives* PI as a
> physical quantity by appropriately cooking the constants (yes, I
> read you web site and I was underwhelemed by it).
I have NO IDEA what the heck you're talking about. To my knowledge I
have never tried to decribe pi as some physically 'real' dimension,
that's silly. Reference please a quote with enough content to be
understandable.
However, given your seeming ability to misinterpet what has been
written as evidenced by your claim that Maxwell claimed that his model
somehow had mechanical pulleys and idler wheels, it easy to see how
you might confuse yourself...
Finally, I do not now have, nor have I ever had, a 'website'. I have
posted articles and derivations over the years that others have seem
fit to post on their websites.
Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker
Ooops. I meant to say is it safe for me to hold my breath till then.
Sorry about that.
Bob Kolker
Sergey Karavashkin
> … Do you even have any incling of an idea about what is curved, what
does the distorting, and what follows the curves? This is what science
has to say about it: We have these photon thingies, which are sort of
waves. No, oops they are particles, sort of so small that they
virtually never collide, sort of waveparticle type stuff. Oh, and they
stop themselves going faster than the speed they all go at. Well
anyway, maybe they have mass or not but they have this energy stuff
which just "is" and, eer, well then these "graviton" thingies just
shoot out of matter (which is sort of little lumpy stuff all whizzing
around itself), anyway, the gravitons just shoot out and suck the
photon thingies back to base… <
Dear Mark,
An old wisdom says, if everything has been done in the theory, it
means this theory's crisis. To understand, please imagine a simple
kinematic scheme. Two material objects, a material body and your
graviton, fly towards each other. In accord with GR, the graviton,
having the energy, has also the mass proportional to energy. Besides,
it has a direction of motion from the body having it produced. Now the
graviton collides inelastically with the material body, joins it or is
absorbed. Could you calculate a direction of resulting motion of the
total mass? If it shifts towards the parent body, your theory is OK.
Then be sure seeking the gravitons and complain of the imperfect
experimental scope. But if, in accord with all kinematic concepts, the
resulting motion changes its direction reverse (which is obvious),
then what for so sharp words were, weren't they?
Two crocodiles fly, one check, another to Africa. How old my granny
was, if one unscrew a right wheel from a locomotive? :-)
Sergey
Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
> Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>>> <snip of a remaining tidbit of Kolker's inproper snipping>
>>
>> That's bullshit. Maxwell NEVER thought space was 'filled with hexagonal
>> gear trains and idler wheels'. Citation please...
>
> - Physical Lines of Force - by James Clerk Maxwell
That's a reference, now how about the citation...
>> Maxwell did provide illustrations of vortex arrangements that formed
>> a hexagonal matrix and predicted this LONG before it actually was
>> observed.
>
> This is it. He proposed the vortex as a reality. He later unproposed it
> in - The Dynamical Theory of the Electrical Field -.
>
> Did you bother to read his papers?
Yes, probably better than you did. He didn't unpropose any such thing.
> You can get a sample of how Maxwell thought (he was a genius) by reading
> - Maxwell on the Electromagnetic Field : A guided study - by Thomas K.
> Simpson.
Yup, if you remember correctly, it was I who provided you with that
reference...
> See his hexagons and idler wheels on p. 205. Its right there.
I see the hex pattern in figure 3.19 with a current flow indicated.
I call your attention to the photograph on page 318 of Davies' "The New
Physics" of Benard cells... or see
http://www.etl.noaa.gov/eo/notes/Convection/RBCells.html
Or following this
http://staff.science.nus.edu.sg/~parwani/c1/node62.html
and click on Benard cells.
Now, in 1861 there existed no means on Earth to create and observe such
but, as you say, such was Maxwell's genius that he was both able to
envison, draw, and predict the existence of such.
Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker
Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>
> Yes, probably better than you did. He didn't unpropose any such thing.
Not so.
Here is a quote of Maxwell from "A Dynamical Theory of the
Electromagnetic Field", Philosophical Transactions Vol 155 (1865) pp
459 - 512
" I have on former occasion attempt to describe a particular kind of
motion and a particular kind of strain, so arrange as to account for the
phenomena. In the present paper I avoid any hypothesis of this kind, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to using such words as "electric momentum" and "electric elasticity" in
reference to the known phenomena of induction of currents and
polarization of diaelectrics. I wish merely to direct the mind of the
reader to mechanical phenomena which will *assist him* {emphasis mine,
RJK} to understanding the electrical ones. All such phrases in the
present paper are to be considered as *illustrative, not as explanitory*
{emphasis mine, RJK}...."
Bob Kolker
Paul Stowe
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
> Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> In article <3CCB092B...@asu.edu>,
>> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me that 'causes' result in observations...
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you seem to believe that experience alone
>>>>> is enough for humans to UNIQUELY determine
>>>>> TRUE "causes." That is, you believe that physics
>>>>> is a basis to reverse-engineer reality from
>>>>> observation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is physics ever allowed to use a "made up"
>>>>> cause in a physical theory?
>>>>
>>>> No, but it does so, by ascribing magic properties to empty voids.
>>>> It alleges that c, permittivity and permeability etc. are caused by
>>>> nothing.
>>>
>>> What is the ultimate cause?
>>
>> Easy to answer, we don't know..., yet. So anyone's guess is as
>> good as anyone else. I happen to like, God got bored...
>
> Isn't the ultimate cause magic?
Unknown is not synonomous with magic.
> Isn't God miraculous?
I don't know, I haven't experienced any miracles.
> Isn't the difference between miraculous and magic just semantics?
Not relevant to science, and I think you know this.
>>>> The truth is that (as far as present official fizzics is concerned)
>>>> the cause of those properties is unknowable , because it is
>>>> impossible to derive them from "accepted" concepts. This is why the
>>>> outdated "lumpy things whizzing about in a void and interacting
>>>> magically at a distance" theory is bound to be updated by a modern
>>>> aether theory.
>>>>
>>>> Mark K.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is physics ever allowed to model macroscopic matter as continuous,
>>> such as a metal wire, or to model extended matter as a point mass
>>> particle?
>>
>> That strictly depend on what level one wants to define their interest.
>>
>> There are, because of nature, rules that apply that aren't free to
>> be played with by 'observers'.
>>
>> Paul Stowe
>>
>
> So, one can play fast and loose with modeling under certain politically
> correct circumstances then, right?
Now how did you interpet that out of the above. Again, one does not have
to invoke kinetic theory to deal with bulk medium properties... However,
just because one is not interested in the domain at which kinetic theory
'becomes' an important consideration, does NOT in turn mean that the domain
and processes descibed by same doesn't exist, or are not important. It
just means what I did say above...
Paul Stowe
au...@detroit.freenet.org
and radial vortexing at stuff near "c"
to explain magnet-suck attraction,
and the whirling electrons of atoms to indicate electric field by
definition.
electric field caused by whirling electrons creating some kind of
electro-magnet,
and magnetics implied by the interdimensional vortexing of the quarks and
stuff that make them up,
shouldn't be so (magical-thinking) unbelievable under dsm 3r-4-5a errorless
criteria
(standard 6-month differential diagnosis interval)
among intelligence operatives and fizzickqueues amateurs.
gee, the national and universe security depends on them instead of me,
diametrically,
r.m.s. watts-wise.
don't you love the (federal religion) (rescinded/unrescinded
oath/citizenship/commission) king?
--
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
au...@detroit.freenet.org all is meow when said in kitten
mark brown perfect peace be upon you
forever salami/salam
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
snipp! ===============================================
"MarkK" <markk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e7b962f.0204...@posting.google.com...
au...@detroit.freenet.org
count on that being what the ether people are talking about.
Paul Stowe
Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes, probably better than you did. He didn't unpropose any such thing.
>Not so.
>
>Here is a quote of Maxwell from "A Dynamical Theory of the
>Electromagnetic Field", Philosophical Transactions Vol 155 (1865) pp
>459 - 512
>
>
> "I have on former occasion attempt to describe a particular kind of
> motion and a particular kind of strain, so arrange as to account for the
> phenomena. In the present paper I avoid any hypothesis of this kind, and
> to using such words as "electric momentum" and "electric elasticity" in
> reference to the known phenomena of induction of currents and
> polarization of diaelectrics. I wish merely to direct the mind of the
> reader to mechanical phenomena which will assist him to understanding the
> electrical ones. All such phrases in the present paper are to be considered
> as illustrative, not as explanitory."
Gee Bob, you do have a very short memory don't you. Let's see do I
have to point anything out???? No, let's let Stephen Spiecher say
it... again
"I am not sure what you think Maxwell is implying in the quote you
provide. In the very same document, "A Dynamical Theory of the
Electromagnetic Field," Maxwell states:
"We have therefore some reason to believe, from the
phenomena of light and heat, that there is an aethereal
medium filling space and permeating bodies, capable of
being set in motion and of transmitting that motion
from one part to another, and of communicating that
motion to gross matter so as to heat it and affect it
in various ways."
I am not an aetherist, but the above sure sounds like someone
speaking about an aether which is "really, really, real."..."
And of course he WAS speaking to you, just a month or so ago...
There is also again that thar problem of the Treatises, where
he says again that he by the 'atomic vortex hypothesis' but
that the details need a lot more work on... Yup it doesn't
appear to support your claim that he 'unproposed' his vortex
hypothesis...
Paul Stowe