Preferential Frame
Hayek
The inertial field that it is in.
This inertial field is exactly the same as the
gravitational field. I prefer to call it an inertial
field, since it does not do any "graviational" things,
since it attracts the same from all directions and does
not have a gradient. Our inertial field is made by all
the stars and galaxies around us, and is a billion times
stronger than the field from the Earth.
Now we are in a rocket, at some .6 c and we lanch a
photon from one of our instruments, let us say from the
back of our ship, to the front.
The light is now detached from the ship, but the light
will automatically adjust to the surrounding inertial
field and will move at c wrt the stars and galaxies.
That is why I like to call this frame, the preferential
frame.
The fact that the ships clocks speed and length has
shrunk and the measured speed of light on board now also
turns out at c, is of secondary importance, since the
clock retardation, and length contraction of the ship is
also due to the speed wrt to this galaxian inertial frame.
Hayek.
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)
Bill Hobba
> What sets the speed of light ?
>
> The inertial field that it is in.
>
Please cite the peer reviewed paper that provides the experimental details
of the detection of this fabulous thing. The author will win a Nobel prize
for sure. The fact is there is no such thing. Classically the speed of
light is set by Maxwell's equations - no inertial field, aether or anything
else required - just the plain good old electromagnetic field.
Thanks
Bill
Hayek
Bill Hobba wrote:
> Hayek wrote:
>
>>What sets the speed of light ?
>>
>>The inertial field that it is in.
>>
>>
>
> Please cite the peer reviewed paper that provides the experimental details
> of the detection of this fabulous thing.
You can draw those conclusions yourself, from existing
experiments :
The speed of light is :
- not influenced by the speed of its source (pulsars)
- influenced by gravity (or inertia,=)(shapiro delay)
Detection of inertia?
How do you detect the inertia of your own frame, as it
dictates *ALL* the laws of physics ? This can only be
done by watching from another frame with different
inertia. Like a sealevel clock watching another clock at
mountain level, and vice versa. And this does only gives
relative results. Well, maybe not quite, one could
deduce overall inertia from the ratio of influence of
the Earth. The Earth influences inertia by about one in
a billion.
> The author will win a Nobel prize
> for sure. The fact is there is no such thing.
So you deny gravity *and* inertia ?
As I stated clearly, he inertial field is the same thing
as the gravitational field, according to GR that got it
from Mach. And Gravity Probe B is going to test this
directly.
You should read this very carefully :
http://www.blavatsky.net/confirm/ev/ether/etherEinstein.htm
> Classically the speed of
> light is set by Maxwell's equations
After you pluck permittivity and permeability constants
out of 'empty space', by experiment.
> - no inertial field, aether or anything
> else required - just the plain good old electromagnetic field.
I have heard about an electric field, a magnetic field,
and about an electromagnetic wave, but I never heard of
an electromagnetic field.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:3EEC35D0...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
Asking:
| "How do you detect the inertia of your own frame, as it
| dictates *ALL* the laws of physics ?",
Knowing all about General Relativity, posting scans of MTW,
having redesigned the Whole of Modern Physics, being an
expert on the Philosophy Of Time...
but
| "never heard of an electromagnetic field."
Maybe this will help:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22electromagnetic+field%22
138000 hits.
By the way, that Madame Blavatsky text of yours that we
"should read very carefully"
http://www.blavatsky.net/confirm/ev/ether/etherEinstein.htm
contains this:
"but also as the bearer of electromagnetic fields."
"also appears as bearer of electromagnetic fields"
"was exclusively the seat of electromagnetic fields."
"the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of the electromagnetic field"
"The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium"
"We have something like this in the electromagnetic field."
"this way of regarding the electromagnetic field"
"In the equations of the electromagnetic field there occur"
"The electromagnetic fields appear as"
"and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of"
"in the absence of electromagnetic fields"
"imagined without an electromagnetic field"
"the electromagnetic field seems to be"
"the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet"
"it looks as if the electromagnetic field"
"condensations of the electromagnetic field"
"gravitational ether and electromagnetic field,"
"the gravitational held and the electromagnetic field"
Since apparently you really don't mind looking like a complete
idiot, I think this deserves a nice new entry:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NeverHeard.html
Title: "but I never heard of an electromagnetic field."
I hope you like it.
With a fine weather like this and living in a place like Knokke,
why don't you make a nice long walk?
Dirk Vdm
Hayek
Bill Hobba wrote :
[on "Inertial field"]
"The fact is there is no such thing."
I worded it badly.
I should have said on the
"electromagnetic field"
That there is no such thing.
Better wording was : I know what an electric field is, I
know what an magnetic field is, I know what an
electromagnetic wave is, but I do not know what an
electromagnetic field is.
Better now ?
Or can you tell me what an electromagnetic "field" looks
like ?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:3EECB36A...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
>
[snip]
> Better wording was : I know what an electric field is, I
> know what an magnetic field is, I know what an
> electromagnetic wave is, but I do not know what an
> electromagnetic field is.
>
> Better now ?
You *should* know what an electromagnetic field is if you
would have "carefully read" your Theosophy text: it mentions
electromagnetic fields 18 times.
> Or can you tell me what an electromagnetic "field" looks
> like ?
Ha wait, now I get it: your advise to carefully read Madame
Blavatsky literature was in fact an invitation to us to read it,
find out what the hell they are talking about, and then explain
to you. Right?
Well sorry, I haven't read the text, I merely grepped it with
the string "electromagnetic field" and had a healthy jolly
good laugh. Thanks for that :-)
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:3EECB36A...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
>
[snip]
> Better wording was : I know what an electric field is, I
> know what an magnetic field is, I know what an
> electromagnetic wave is, but I do not know what an
> electromagnetic field is.
>
> Better now ?
You *should* know what an electromagnetic field is if you
would have "carefully read" your Theosophy text: it mentions
electromagnetic fields 18 times.
> Or can you tell me what an electromagnetic "field" looks
> like ?
Ha wait, now I get it: your advise to carefully read Madame
Old Physics
Esteemed Dr. Vdm,
In another thread I asked what would happen if a marble sized
volume of neutrons with a mass of three billion tons were to be moving
so fast that its mass would be equal to the mass of the sun when it
passes the sun.
From the frame of reference of the marble the sun would have a
mass 10^18 times larger and would barely move. From the vantage of
the sun, the marble would be equal in mass and they would both move
towards each other by the same amount. How would you solve this
paradox?
With highest regards,
stephen kearney
Hayek
Old Physics wrote:
What DVdm cannot recite from his textbooks he does not
know and does not want to know. I am waiting for him to
recite from a text book what an electromagnetic field is
, that can't be that hard.
HenriWilson
Please cite a peer reviewed paper that provides experimental proof that OWLS is
constant.
You SRians really are pathetic.
Henri Wilson.
The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!
And it nearly worked!!!!!
See my newly UPGRADED animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
HenriWilson
My H-aether theory appear to provide a few of the links missing from your
theory Hayek
EM provides it own 'medium'. Both the wave and the medium initially start out
at c relative to the source. Eventually it intermingles with the 'average' and
settles down to the local cosmic frame speed.
H-aether varies in 'density'. The rate at which EM adapts to the local speed
depends on that density.
It is very rare throughout most of space so extinction takes place slowly.
The Haether is not an absolute reference frame but possesses turbulence and
gradients like a gas. It congregates around matter. Maybe matter represents
very high concentrations of Haether.
Bilge
that should have been chiseled into the tablet was "Let there be Light
and let it Propagate at c".
Old Physics
>
> In another thread I asked what would happen if a marble sized
> volume of neutrons with a mass of three billion tons were to be moving
> so fast that its mass would be equal to the mass of the sun when it
> passes the sun.
> From the frame of reference of the marble the sun would have a
> the sun, the marble would be equal in mass and they would both move
> towards each other by the same amount. How would you solve this
> paradox?
>
> With highest regards,
> stephen kearney
Does this rate as a fumble?
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Old Physics" <skea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13fd3446.03061...@posting.google.com...
Yes. Motion does not alter mass... only momentum.
David A. Smith
Bill Hobba
> What DVdm cannot recite from his textbooks he does not
> know and does not want to know. I am waiting for him to
> recite from a text book what an electromagnetic field is
> , that can't be that hard.
>
An electromagnetic field is a mathematical construct to get around the speed
limit of SR. Since relativity forbids instantaneous action at a distance
you can only have action caused by something at the point the action occurs.
This something is a field. There is a way out. You can describe things in
terms of events that occurred in the past. But the horrible mathematical
formalism that results can be shown to be equivalent to the idea of a field.
That is why fields 'exist' if you can call this type of existence
'existing'. I do but I suppose that is a point of debate.
Thanks
Bill
Old Physics
So the marble would be deflected toward the sun and the sun would not move?
Is there no such thing as relativistic mass?
sk
Old Physics
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Old Physics" <skea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13fd3446.03061...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:<xrSHa.91426$hd6.9668@fed1read05>...
...
> > Yes. Motion does not alter mass... only momentum.
>
> So the marble would be deflected toward the sun and the sun would not
move?
The Sun will move if a gnat flies by. *Measuring* the "course change" will
be problematic.
> Is there no such thing as relativistic mass?
Not in my books. But I only have *new* ones.
David A. Smith
Bill Hobba
> How would you answer this question, Mr. Hobba?
>
> > > Esteemed Dr. Vdm,
> > >
> > > In another thread I asked what would happen if a marble sized
> > > volume of neutrons with a mass of three billion tons were to be moving
> > > so fast that its mass would be equal to the mass of the sun when it
> > > passes the sun.
> > > From the frame of reference of the marble the sun would have a
> > > mass 10^18 times larger and would barely move. From the vantage of
> > > the sun, the marble would be equal in mass and they would both move
> > > towards each other by the same amount. How would you solve this
> > > paradox?
> > >
> > > With highest regards,
> > > stephen kearney
How the hell would I know? I think I mentioned before I hate solving
physics problems except those that interest me. That one holds no interest
for me whatsoever. At a guess I would ask how can the sun move in a frame
of reference where it is the 'vantage' by which I assume you mean it is the
center of some coordinate system. Considering that I see no paradox.
Thanks
Bill
Old Physics
Bill,
I should have been precise and used "from the sun's frame of
reference" instead of vantage. Mea Culpa.
I posted this under 'dilemma paradox' and got no response. I
hoped that you would take an interest and get the ball rolling. I
finally got a response from Dr. Carlip, which as usual was so through
that I didn't understand it. Some times you are better at explaining
things in laymans terms. I meant no offence. Mea Culpa. sk
Old Physics
I should have been precise, the sun would move by 10^36 times less
than the marble, or would it be 10^18 times less? Details, details.
Maybe my problem is that I've read too many old books.
Theoretical physics was much simpler then. Of course you know me, I
believe that the sun is moving at a bit more than 80% SoL and that the
marble really would have a mass of 10^57 GeV, the mass of the energy
necessary to accelerate it to its absolute velocity. You remember,
E=mc^2.
Always good to read from you, David,
stephen kearney
Old Physics
No jibe to set the room at a roar, Mr. Smith? sk
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Old Physics" <skea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13fd3446.03062...@posting.google.com...
...
> No jibe to set the room at a roar, Mr. Smith?
Why try and "score"? Try this instead:
<QUOTE>
How to Stay Young (George Carlin)
1. Throw out nonessential numbers. This includes age, weight and
height. Let the doctor worry about them. That is why you pay him/her.
2. Keep only cheerful friends. The grouches pull you down.
3. Keep learning. Learn more about the computer, crafts, gardening,
whatever. Never let the brain idle. " An idle mind is the devil's
workshop." And the devil's name is Alzheimer's.
4. Enjoy the simple things.
5. Laugh often, long and loud. Laugh until you gasp for breath.
6. The tears happen. Endure, grieve, and move on. The only person who is
with us our entire life, is ourselves. Be ALIVE while you are alive.
7. Surround yourself with what you love, whether it's family, pets,
keepsakes, music, plants, hobbies, whatever. Your home is your refuge.
8. Cherish your health: If it is good, preserve it. If it is unstable,
improve it. If it is beyond what you can improve, get help.
9. Don't take guilt trips. Take a trip to the mall, to the next county,
to a foreign country, but NOT to where the guilt is.
10. Tell the people you love that you love them, at every opportunity.
AND ALWAYS REMEMBER: Life is not measured by the number of breaths we
take, but by the moments that take our breath away.
<END QUOTE>
Sufficient to the task?
David A. Smith
Old Physics
As always David, you are a wit without malice.
But back to relativity, do you atleast understand my concept of an
aether with a density of a galaxy in a grain of dirt, a thousand to
the pinhead, with quanta that have absolute mass and matter that
changes mass with absolute velocity?
Thanks for the advise, I've seen it from my sister's e-mail but
never knew where it came from.
With highest regard,
stephen kearney
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Old Physics" <skea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13fd3446.03062...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:<GeaJa.97778$hd6.31075@fed1read05>...
> Thanks for the advise, I've seen it from my sister's e-mail but
> never knew where it came from.
I find a lot of his recent stuff hard to get a laugh out of. This, no
matter when it was generated, is priceless. No laughs, except at the petty
expectations we have of any given day.
> As always David, you are a wit without malice.
I have malice. But like the Hulk (not a bad movie. I finally figured out
the "frames" were a reminder of the comic book), I try to keep it to
myself.
> But back to relativity, do you atleast understand my concept of an
> aether with a density of a galaxy in a grain of dirt, a thousand to
> the pinhead, with quanta that have absolute mass and matter that
> changes mass with absolute velocity?
I find no need for an aether. If a "particle" can self-interfere with
geometry that is further apart than any two galaxies, it is obvious that
the *Universe* is the aether to any particle... photons included. The
Universe would be very rigid to a single photon. Its physical properties
would be largely unaffected by the number of photons in any "volume" of
space (curvature excluded).
I would submit that your image "density of a galaxy in a grain of dirt, a
thousand to the pinhead" is merely the dissolution of the illusion of
distance. This is what a quantum Universe might express. Here and
Not-Here is not the same as Here-And-Relevant and Not-Here-And-No-Effect.
David A. Smith
Old Physics
> I have malice. But like the Hulk (not a bad movie. I finally figured out
> the "frames" were a reminder of the comic book), I try to keep it to
> myself.
>
> > But back to relativity, do you atleast understand my concept of an
> > aether with a density of a galaxy in a grain of dirt, a thousand to
> > the pinhead, with quanta that have absolute mass and matter that
> > changes mass with absolute velocity?
>
> I find no need for an aether. If a "particle" can self-interfere with
> geometry that is further apart than any two galaxies, it is obvious that
> the *Universe* is the aether to any particle... photons included. The
> Universe would be very rigid to a single photon. Its physical properties
> would be largely unaffected by the number of photons in any "volume" of
> space (curvature excluded).
>
> I would submit that your image "density of a galaxy in a grain of dirt, a
> thousand to the pinhead" is merely the dissolution of the illusion of
> distance. This is what a quantum Universe might express. Here and
> Not-Here is not the same as Here-And-Relevant and Not-Here-And-No-Effect.
>
> David A. Smith
I should have specified that density would be in "antimass", the
aether that energy displaces. The aether is what is here, mass is
made of less of whats here. The number of quanta would be relevant to
other quanta but barely to space, density excluded. Distance would be
no illusion, but it would be bridged by a second density mode for
gravity, the unit charge and quantum "wiskers", that could propagate
at perhaps more than a billion LYs/sec.
For physicists there may be no need for euclidean space. For
nature the question is yet to be experimentally addressed. What if
matter, made of energy, really does contract and time (mass) dilate
when accelerated away from the center of the BB. Isn't it worth an
"airliner experiment" to find out?
In a way this NG represents the quest to solve the mystery of what
time and space are, how we got to the here and now, which is different
from the here and not here of quantum mechanics, which may be why it
dosn't feel satisfying.
Responses to my posts are few and far between. Even Uncle Al's
reply: "emperically impossible, mathematically inconsistant, beneath
contempt" is welcome, though I do wish he'd be more specific.
That you recognize that the universe is very rigid to a quantum
isn't far from rigid space carries the quantum. Experiment is the
arbiter of truth in science and that is what it will take for the
dissolution of my illusion.
Thank you for the post, David,
stephen kearney
Old Physics
> >
> > I have malice. But like the Hulk (not a bad movie. I finally figured out
> > the "frames" were a reminder of the comic book), I try to keep it to
> > myself.
> >
> > > But back to relativity, do you atleast understand my concept of an
> > > aether with a density of a galaxy in a grain of dirt, a thousand to
> > > the pinhead, with quanta that have absolute mass and matter that
> > > changes mass with absolute velocity?
> >
> > I find no need for an aether. If a "particle" can self-interfere with
> > geometry that is further apart than any two galaxies, it is obvious that
How do you know if self interference can occur over such a distance?
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Old Physics" <skea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13fd3446.03062...@posting.google.com...
> skea...@earthlink.net (Old Physics) wrote in message
news:13fd3446.03062...@posting.google.com...
...
> > > I find no need for an aether. If a "particle" can self-interfere
with
> > > geometry that is further apart than any two galaxies, it is obvious
that
>
> How do you know if self interference can occur over such a distance?
(And Dave trots out his favorite classical argument...)
Look at the classic diffraction formula. I'll supply one, the location of
the first minimum in single slit diffraction:
sin( theta ) = wavelength / opening size
Only one case provides for an identically zero diffraction angle. Zero
wavelength, which is infinite energy. Opening size (say the distance
between two galaxies) can be arbitrarily large, say the size of the
Universe, and the deflection angle for any given population of *particles*
is non-zero.
And you may yet say, well how do you *know* it would diffract over such a
great distance. The only real answer would be to travel out so many Gly,
wait so many billion years, and measure the distribution. But it appears
*to me* likely that saying a particle is *here* (Dave points to somewhere
in front of him) is not saying as much as we might think. Not only is all
of the particle *not* here, but by inference, a great deal of the rest of
the danged Universe is here too.
David A. Smith
Old Physics
What happened to the particle's whiskers. The center of mass of a
quantum could be in a very specific location, within a wavelength.
The quantum could occilate, out to a distance of 100 billion LYs, for
visible light, and back to a wavelength.
Certainly many times the mass of the universe in the form of
aether "antimass", would be required to sustain your atoms, David.
That's a lot of universe. It works out to about one universe per
newborn babe (the volume of two grapefruits, as the atoms are moving
at close to 0.86c they are contracted by about half).
It is the simplest of theories.
Stephen Hawking called Occam's razor a principle of economy, and
we should cut out all aspects of the theory that cannot be observed.
Simplicity dosn't always come cheap.
I suspect that you throughly understand "Modified Aether Concept",
even if you are not up to admitting this.
How about telling me "your not even wrong".
stephen kearney
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Old Physics" <skea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13fd3446.03062...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:<ek8Ka.101596$hd6.93549@fed1read05>...
...
> > (And Dave trots out his favorite classical argument...)
> >
> > Look at the classic diffraction formula. I'll supply one, the location
of
> > the first minimum in single slit diffraction:
> > sin( theta ) = wavelength / opening size
> >
> > Only one case provides for an identically zero diffraction angle. Zero
> > wavelength, which is infinite energy. Opening size (say the distance
> > between two galaxies) can be arbitrarily large, say the size of the
> > Universe, and the deflection angle for any given population of
*particles*
> > is non-zero.
> >
> > And you may yet say, well how do you *know* it would diffract over such
a
> > great distance. The only real answer would be to travel out so many
Gly,
> > wait so many billion years, and measure the distribution. But it
appears
> > *to me* likely that saying a particle is *here* (Dave points to
somewhere
> > in front of him) is not saying as much as we might think. Not only is
all
> > of the particle *not* here, but by inference, a great deal of the rest
of
> > the danged Universe is here too.
>
> What happened to the particle's whiskers. The center of mass of a
> quantum could be in a very specific location, within a wavelength.
> The quantum could occilate, out to a distance of 100 billion LYs, for
> visible light, and back to a wavelength.
You can't say anything about a quantum particle. Especially position.
> Certainly many times the mass of the universe in the form of
> aether "antimass", would be required to sustain your atoms, David.
I don't see this as a requirement. The Universe present at every point (to
some extent) is more than enough.
> That's a lot of universe. It works out to about one universe per
> newborn babe (the volume of two grapefruits, as the atoms are moving
> at close to 0.86c they are contracted by about half).
> It is the simplest of theories.
> Stephen Hawking called Occam's razor a principle of economy, and
> we should cut out all aspects of the theory that cannot be observed.
> Simplicity dosn't always come cheap.
>
> I suspect that you throughly understand "Modified Aether Concept",
> even if you are not up to admitting this.
I think you have been doing wishful thinking.
> How about telling me "your not even wrong".
How about "I have no idea how what you just said had anything to do with
what I had said". Will that do?
David A. Smith
Old Physics
> of
> > > the danged Universe is here too.
> >
> > What happened to the particle's whiskers. The center of mass of a
> > quantum could be in a very specific location, within a wavelength.
> > The quantum could occilate, out to a distance of 100 billion LYs, for
> > visible light, and back to a wavelength.
>
> You can't say anything about a quantum particle. Especially position.
You can after it's energy has been incorporated into an electron.
> > Certainly many times the mass of the universe in the form of
> > aether "antimass", would be required to sustain your atoms, David.
>
> I don't see this as a requirement. The Universe present at every point (to
> some extent) is more than enough.
Too much universe, too little space.
> > That's a lot of universe. It works out to about one universe per
> > newborn babe (the volume of two grapefruits, as the atoms are moving
> > at close to 0.86c they are contracted by about half).
> > It is the simplest of theories.
> > Stephen Hawking called Occam's razor a principle of economy, and
> > we should cut out all aspects of the theory that cannot be observed.
> > Simplicity dosn't always come cheap.
> >
> > I suspect that you throughly understand "Modified Aether Concept",
> > even if you are not up to admitting this.
>
> I think you have been doing wishful thinking.
I did hold out hope, which has wings and can fly away.
> > How about telling me "your not even wrong".
>
> How about "I have no idea how what you just said had anything to do with
> what I had said". Will that do?
>
> David A. Smith
Do I have a choice? I see a connection, but our ideas are
different. Mine is a just a smaller pill to swollow and easier to
describe. The big bang is, well, like a big bang. Time is not a
dimention but a quality of the aether, time happens, euclidean space
is. I start with that and work backwards.
Keep posted,
stephen kearney
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Old Physics" <skea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13fd3446.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > of the particle *not* here, but by inference, a great deal of the rest
> > of
> > > > the danged Universe is here too.
> > >
> > > What happened to the particle's whiskers. The center of mass of
a
> > > quantum could be in a very specific location, within a wavelength.
> > > The quantum could occilate, out to a distance of 100 billion LYs, for
> > > visible light, and back to a wavelength.
> >
> > You can't say anything about a quantum particle. Especially position.
>
> You can after it's energy has been incorporated into an electron.
Not really. You're never sure exaclty "when", and you don't really know
"where" the electron came from. And you really can't say a whole lot about
"path".
> > > Certainly many times the mass of the universe in the form of
> > > aether "antimass", would be required to sustain your atoms, David.
> >
> > I don't see this as a requirement. The Universe present at every point
(to
> > some extent) is more than enough.
>
> Too much universe, too little space.
Lots of little spaces. Just give up thinking there is something unique
about *here*.
...
> > > I suspect that you throughly understand "Modified Aether
Concept",
> > > even if you are not up to admitting this.
> >
> > I think you have been doing wishful thinking.
>
> I did hold out hope, which has wings and can fly away.
Yep. Let each man lay his dead according to his own fashion.
> > > How about telling me "your not even wrong".
> >
> > How about "I have no idea how what you just said had anything to do
with
> > what I had said". Will that do?
>
> Do I have a choice? I see a connection, but our ideas are
> different. Mine is a just a smaller pill to swollow and easier to
> describe. The big bang is, well, like a big bang. Time is not a
> dimention but a quality of the aether, time happens, euclidean space
> is. I start with that and work backwards.
I will be gone for a little over a week. So responses (if any are required)
will be slow in coming.
David A. Smith