Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
sci.physics.relativity
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Information and the Aether
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
greywolf42  
View profile  
 More options Jun 26 2003, 11:36 am
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: "greywolf42" <ming...@sim-ss.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:49:06 -0700
Local: Thurs, Jun 26 2003 11:49 am
Subject: Re: Information and the Aether
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@Lucent.com> wrote in message

news:3EFAEDED.9000105@Lucent.com...

> On 6/25/2003 4:53 PM, Laurent wrote:
> > The aether, consists of basic, changeless, motionless fixed values
> > (laws), from which everything else, including meaningful information,
> > is being created as spacetime.

> Hmmm. If your claims were correct, don't you think it strange that no
> mainstream theory of physics includes such an aether?

It's not "strange."  Fashion is enforced.

> Don't you think it
> stranger still that nobody has presented a sensible theory that both
> includes an aether and agrees with the experimental record?

The bold-faced lie, again.

> Those of us
> that do physics have concluded that this latter point indicates that
> there most likely is no such thing as an aether....

When you start by assuming a deliberate lie, your conclusions are of
necessity incorrect.

> The primary argument against the aether, IMHO, is that nobody has ever
> come up with a way it can be consistent with quantum phenomena (much
> less "cause" them).

Deliberate lie, again.

> For instance, EVERYTHING we have ever observed is
> quantized -- no continuous substance or object has EVER been observed

This, from a die-hard relativist.  SR and GR are pure continuum theories!

> (when examined closely enough). How can you reconcile this with your
> notion of aether above?

His notion of "aether" is a space-time continuum.  And here I claimed only
a day or two ago that only relativists believed in a continuous aether.  :(

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google