The ether

[John-Erik Persson]

To all

Lorentz and Michelson invented the theory of special relativity in about the year 1887 by a great mistake. They assumed that a transverse ether wind could tilt the wave fronts. However, an ether wind blowing inside the wave fronts cannot tilt these wave fronts. Therefore, we find that the component in light motion transverse to the wave fronts is unchanged. This means that the speed reduction (equal to the inverse of GAMMMA) in light motion is not real. So, the introduction of the special theory of relativity was a great mistake and we do not need special relativity.

Constant forces in gravity and oscillating forces in light indicates that an ether based on matter must be assumed. So, we need the ether.

So, please read "The Unavoidable Ether" and see that special relativity must be substituted by the ether.

John-Erik

[Roger Munday]

John-Erik,

You assert that:-

“Constant forces in gravity and oscillating forces in light indicate that an ether based on matter must be assumed. So, we need the ether.”

As I have said before all you need to do is to demonstrate, to prove, that your “ether” exists between atoms, so that somehow it can transmit your “gravity” between your assumed “discontinuous” 10³² atoms per cubic centimetre in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Roger Munday

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/1340546013.3665143.1732465344959%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Roger Munday]

John-Erik,

You say:- Why do you talk about the atmosphere?

It is observed that magnetic fields propagate, act and react continuously within the observed atmosphere, e.g. outwards through the Earth’s extensive atmosphere until its individual field meets and interacts with the individual fields extended by other celestial bodies, e.g the Sun and the Moon.

These interactions act consistently to maintain the orbital motions of these, and of the motions of all such solid material entities in the entire universe.

You are saying that “gravity is an ether property” and that this, your ethereally propagating “gravity” is also acting simultaneously in the same fields.

Transmission in vacua is not possible.

As magnetism is observed to be consistently acting in the atmosphere, there is no need for you, or anyone, to assume another unexaminable “mythical force”.

You. and all humankind and the entire universe are governed by observed magnetic interactions.

So you believe that your “ether” exists between the 10³² atmospheric atoms in the Earth’s sea level atmosphere and which transmits your “gravity”.

However you say that I cannot prove that your ether does not exist.

Indeed, I do not need to prove that vacua/ethers exist, as it is a simple fact that such hypothetical entities are unable to explain how the observed transmissions of forces can act and react between any two physical bodies that are assumed to be separated by such a noninteractive “medium”.

Roger Munday

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 at 05:09, John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com> wrote:

Roger

You have no right to tell me what to do. You are not my boss. I regard the ether as an important hypothesis - no more. No one can prove that the ether does not exist and not that the ether is not needed either. Although Einstein said it was not needed.

John-Erik

PS

Gravity is an ether property. Why do you talk about the atmosphere?

DS

[Roger Munday]

John Erik.

You say - “since we have either vacuum (emptiness) or ether, but not both.” and “forces are emerging inside the bodies, due to the ether.”

Again you (and apparently all theoretical physicists) believe in a hypothetically discontinuous atomic structure of matter.

As you were taught in early physics education that atoms are separated by a non-atomic empty “space”, e.g. either your “ether” or others “vacuum”.

And that the atoms in the atmosphere here at the surface of Earth, an atmosphere that is composed of 10³² atoms per cubic centimetre, are separated by your mythical and totally unexaminable “ether”.

You cannot analyse logically.

Roger Munday

On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 at 07:11, John-Erik Persson <joer...@gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed, I do not need to prove that vacua/ethers exist, as it is a simple fact that such hypothetical entities are unable to explain how the observed transmissions of forces can act and react between any two physical bodies that are assumed to be separated by such a noninteractive “medium”. 

Roger

I do not understand what you mean by "vacua/ethers", since we have either vacuum (emptiness) or ether, but not both. 

"observed transmission of forces". I have said that there are no transmitted forces between the two bodies. Instead forces are emerging inside the bodies, due to the ether. You cannot read.

John-Erik

[John-Erik Persson]

You cannot analyse logically.

Roger

We were discussing physics - not my lack of intelligence.

You cannot analyse logically. So, we can end this debate.

John-Erik

[Roger Munday]

John-Erik,

The Earth's N-S magnetic field is observed in experiment to extend continuously out into the decreasing densities of its local atmospheric field.

That is until it comes locally into contact with the greater, or the lesser, extents of the atmospheres extended by, for example, those of the Sun and the Moon.

In these specific, nominally spherical, atmospheric volumes of these bodies their magnetic fields become increasingly dominant down to their surfaces.

For example if we take a magnetic compass out from the Earth’s surface towards the Moon, it will continue to align with the Earth’s field until, closer to the Moon's surface it will begin to align with its specific N-S magnetic field.

The same progressions will occur within the far greater extent of the Sun’s magnetic field.

These interactions could not propagate within a "discontinuous atomic matter".

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/f3834db6-7bb2-4ecc-a15b-05a3ddad58cbn%40googlegroups.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

These interactions could not propagate within a "discontinuous atomic matter".

Roger

You have still not understood that I talk about an ether based on subatomic particles and not about atomic matter at all. You involve atmosphere and magnetism and that is a very different phenomena not mentioned at all in my paper. This debate is without any meaning, since you talk about magnetism and I about the unavoidable ether.

Do you not have one word to say about the ether?

John-Erik

[Roger Munday]

John-Erik,

Yes, I do have a word.

Proof of its "existence"?

Roger Munday

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger

Something causes oscillating forces called light.

Something causes constant forces called gravity.

Something is called ether.

The ether is needed.

John-Erik

[John-Erik Persson]

To all members

How do you like "The Unavoidable Ether"?

John-Erik

[Roger Munday]

John-Erik,

You say “something causes light, and gravity”

Yes something causes light, and something transmits the entire radiant spectrum.

And something causes the transmission of forces, which are observed to (e.g.) hold the Earth and the Moon in their orbital motions.

But you believe in the current absurd paradigm, in that atoms of any element individually remain at precisely the same volumes in the observed expansions of matter into the solid, liquid or gaseous physical states.

And you accept the nonsense that atoms are separated by vacua (or ethers) and believe that these nonmaterial “spaces” can somehow transmit light, as well as the entire observed spectrum of radiant forces.

And as stated you cannot prove that such totally unexaminable “interatomic spaces” can “exist”.

The transmissions of the entire spectrum of radiant energy are generated in a continuum of magnetic atoms, which atoms expand and contract with inputs and emissions of energy, and which are naturally aligned with the N-S magnetic fields that are observed to act and react within the atmospheres that are intrinsically controlled by and occupy all of space, e.g. that between the Earth and the Moon.

Roger Munday

[John-Erik Persson]

But you believe in the current absurd paradigm, in that atoms of any element individually remain at precisely the same volumes in the observed expansions of matter into the solid, liquid or gaseous physical states.

And you accept the nonsense that atoms are separated by vacua (or ethers) and believe that these nonmaterial “spaces” can somehow transmit light, as well as the entire observed spectrum of radiant forces.

Roger

No, you have not understood that this debate is about what I have written in the paper "The unavoidable ether" and it is not about what I believe and what I accept in general. You are putting words in my mouth. I suggest that you instead should focus on a concrete sentence in the paper so we could have a more constructive debate.

John-Erik

[Roger Munday]

John-Erik,

You have not understood what this debate is about, and still assert that a totally unexaminable "ether" exists.

So you believe absolutely in what you were taught in secondary education, i.e. that vacuum "exists' and that atoms are in "kinetic" motion within this unexaminable "space", and that your indoctrinated "gravity"  exists and acts in this "space".

The ONLY force that is observed to act continuously is magnetism, but of course you still believe that it is insufficient to act between two celestial bodies, as your collective indoctrination into the "kinetic atomic theory of matter" implies that their atmospheres are ultimately and essentially vacuous.

Take two standard iron magnets and align them in proximity N-S or N-N and observe what happens.

According to your beliefs the observed and extensive attractions and repulsions should not transmit through an ultimately "vacuous" atmosphere, and nor should the Earth's all encompassing magnetic fields.

So, as is obvious, but which is conveniently ignored by you and all "physicists", in that your assumed "gravity" could not act and react in your assumed "ultimately vacuous"  atmosphere.

But you, and they, will carry on believing in what you were all taught, in that "one way gravity" exists.

Roger Munday

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger M

and all members

You have not understood what this debate is about, and still assert that a totally unexaminable "ether" exists.

So you believe absolutely in what you were taught in secondary education, i.e. that vacuum "exists' and that atoms are in "kinetic" motion within this unexaminable "space", and that your indoctrinated "gravity"  exists and acts in this "space".

Yes, I believe that there exists something that we can call 'ether', but you are contradicting yourself by stating that this means that vacuum exists, since vacuum means emptiness and no ether. We have either vacuum or ether, but not both.

John-Erik

[Roger Munday]

John Erik,

I did not "state" that "vacuum exists", I was commenting on what is taught in secondary education.

And you say - "We have either vacuum or ether, but not both."

There is no evidence whatsoever of the "existence" of either vacuum or ethers.

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/45acbb28-c704-4262-a330-d416f1a52eb7n%40googlegroups.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger

There is no evidence whatsoever of the "existence" of either vacuum or ethers.

This means that the ether is possible but not necessary. No info does not mean no existence, but uncertain existence.

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vweGOpOwygMta8uDutuOmDq7E%2B6jS2Mbq5nLMuQpbSxKeA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Shafiq Khan]

Hi All,

The existence of aether has been shown experimentally in the paper tittled Michelson -Morley Experiment, A Misconceived and Misinterpreted Experiment which has been published in peer-reviewed journal. It has been shown that the experiment had been incorrectly interpreted to conclude the absence of aether. The papers is available at journal website www.indjst.org.

With Regards 

Mohammad Shafiq Khan 

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/npa-relativity/IrimId_Ru88/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUCSWeY%3D6MNLf5pikiWQ6Co%2BpgoOB4nLuub%3DMcFPyk6nLg%40mail.gmail.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Shafiq

Yes I agree

Michelson did not refute the ether hypothesis

Michelson demonstrated that the contraction by ether wind in 2-way light speed is 

equal to the contraction by ether wind in matter

not equal to zero - as often stated

This confirms the ether hypothesis

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAHYwPz2hr4kJXKyFBeAMhvtaPGiOLNDDi87-VGZ5evH7JHZFxQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

Quote - “The distance between atoms in the three states of matter varies, with :

• Solid

  Atoms are packed tightly together with little to no movement. Solids have a fixed shape and volume.

  Liquid

  Atoms are loosely packed and can move around, but maintain a nearly constant volume. Liquids conform to the shape of their container.

  Gas

  Atoms are loosely packed and can move freely and quickly. Gases expand to fill their container.”

  It is very simple – atoms are proven to exist as distinct entities, and in electromagnetic images (as linked below) are evidently in close associations with no separating spaces.

  But you all believe that individual atoms remain at the same mass densities and volumes in all the observed states of matter, e.g. the solid, liquid, and gaseous states, and so you have to assume that such atoms are intrinsically of constant dimensions and that it is your assumed interatomic vacuum which varies in volume in the transitions between these states.

  If you accept this hypothetical structure (which is apparent) then it is necessary to assume that an interatomic “space” exists, and it is this hypothetically vacuous space that increases or decreases in volume.

  This general belief means that you need to fill this hypothetical non-atomic space with a totally unexaminable “interatomic space”, e.g. composed of aethers, etc. etc.

  And so it is apparent that you ALL believe that such an interatomic “space” exists and you accordingly try to “fill” this totally unexaminable “space” with totally unexaminable, hypothetical subatomic particles.

  This is an actual image of continuous, and obviously static, gold atoms.

file:///home/user/Desktop/Desktop%20Images/Nano%20Bridge%201%20Row.jpg

• Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUCSWeY%3D6MNLf5pikiWQ6Co%2BpgoOB4nLuub%3DMcFPyk6nLg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

Quote - “The distance between atoms in the three states of matter varies, with :

• Solid

  Atoms are packed tightly together with little to no movement. Solids have a fixed shape and volume.

  Liquid

  Atoms are loosely packed and can move around, but maintain a nearly constant volume. Liquids conform to the shape of their container.

  Gas

  Atoms are loosely packed and can move freely and quickly. Gases expand to fill their container.”

• It is very simple – atoms are proven to exist as distinct entities, and in EM images (as below) are evidently in close associations with no separating spaces.

• But you all believe that individual atoms remain at the same mass densities and volumes in all the observed states of matter, e.g. the solid, liquid, and gaseous states, and so you have to assume that such atoms are intrinsically of constant dimensions and that it is your assumed interatomic vacuum which varies in volume in the transitions between these states.

  If you accept this hypothetical structure (which is apparent) then it is necessary to assume that an interatomic “space” exists, and it is this hypothetically vacuous space that increases or decreases in volume.

  This general belief means that you need to fill this hypothetical non-atomic space with a totally unexaminable “interatomic space”, e.g. composed of aethers, etc. etc.

  And so it is apparent that you ALL believe that such an interatomic “space” exists and you accordingly try to “fill” this totally unexaminable “space” with totally unexaminable, hypothetical subatomic particles.

  This is an actual image of continuous, and obviously static, gold atoms.

file:///home/user/Desktop/Desktop%20Images/Nano%20Bridge%201%20Row.jpg

• Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUCSWeY%3D6MNLf5pikiWQ6Co%2BpgoOB4nLuub%3DMcFPyk6nLg%40mail.gmail.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger

This discussion is without  meaning.

We should end this discussion.

Thank you 

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vweDvmT2E0O7q%3DMi-_hCkoKVNwUJ4fXs5mjXR%2Bf4E7YY7A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

John Erik,

You say:-

"ether based on matter must be assumed. So, we need the ether."

and "this discussion is without meaning".

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUB5wzUWtr%3DJCUjzpp9GKTRWg3fjne1XTBDxKxzJF%3DwPuA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger M

Why do you make a citation without giving a comment? This discussion is about a paper of mine, so you are assumed to be critical about it.

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwdq5u-41%2BRYXg1XM1mnywF2U5Roz5hZ%3Df9Utk6TxL7hUg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

Kinetic Atomic Theory of Gases

Quote:- “The theory states that gases are made up of molecules that move randomly and collide with each other and the walls of their container. The collisions determine the pressure of the gas.”

Currently accepted theory amongst physicists states that in the observed increase in the volume of a gas with input of energy the component atoms remain at the same volumes and it is an interceding interatomic vacuum which increases progressively in volume.

So you and all “physicists” accept this assertion that an interatomic vacuum “exists”, this when experiments fail to isolate a perfect vacuum in experiments. This led to the absurd assumption of a sub-atomic ether in order to “fill” such an assumed vacuum.

And this when it is proven to be impossible to “create”, to isolate a perfect vacuum.

This led to the suggestions of interatomic “aethers” which are also impossible to isolate.

Quotes:-

“The kinetic theory of matter states that the different phases of matter, such as solids, liquids, and gases, exist because of the differences in the motion and space between the particles.”

“Even matter in the solid phase is composed of individual particles in constant motion.”

You, and all “physicists”, apparently believe in this total nonsense, and assume a hypothetical “gravity” which could transmit forces in hypothetical “vacua”.

There is one, and only one observed force which is observed to act and react between, e.g. the Earth and the Moon, and this is magnetism.

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUCvUUC2cjqqzoHswfLuPPTBVVUbAz2xCjhV8xZvw6TA1w%40mail.gmail.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger

So you and all “physicists” accept this assertion that an interatomic vacuum “exists”, this when experiments fail to isolate a perfect vacuum in experiments. This led to the absurd assumption of a sub-atomic ether in order to “fill” such an assumed vacuum.

You draw conclusions from failures and failures prove nothing.

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwdwvSi95hKt-zrxOkcAxFuWUxFabmpRpCa5TOCtPEhTzA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

John-Erik,

And so you draw contradictory "conclusions" from such extensive experiments.

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUCSMtoyMANkqV_WByar7KxqE7fxvod5xdQWLAhdFrtMpw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger and all

And so you draw contradictory "conclusions" from such extensive experiments.

No. I draw no conclusions at all from those experiments. Your statement is wrong and the quality of this debate is low and no other member seems to be interested enough to take part. So, I think it is time to either stop this debate or at least limit the debate to you and me and not bother npa-relativity. So, limit your answer to me alone.

John-Erik

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/npa-relativity/IrimId_Ru88/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwfTLOMVStz-V473vGYYmB_V_vEzKTj-xyxKoQz5UZ%2B_3g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

John Erik,

You say – “I draw no conclusions” - nonsense.

If any human being is brought up by other humans who, for an example, believe in a god, they will generally accept this and continue to believe in this god (or gods) for the rest of their lives, and subsequently will indoctrinate their own children accordingly.

This of course applies to any other parental beliefs.

You and all “physicists” have been subjected (indoctrinated in “education”) to a generally accepted “kinetic atomic” parody, which includes the assumption of the “existence” of vacua, and will accordingly defend these beliefs for the rest of their lives.

You say “I draw no conclusions” yet you conclude that current theories from such baseless assumptions are true.

E.g. you believe, without any experimental evidence, that vacua/aethers “exist”.

Dictionary definition of “theory” 1) “a speculative view” or 2) “a supposition explaining something based on general principles independent of the particular things to be explained – e.g. “atomic theory”.

So, it is obvious that you draw conclusions from your past “education” about things that cannot be proven in experiment.

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUBH%2BvjcaD0dg%2B8qcvd6rPbyPk86a31-V55%3D4aUiN2g6Hg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

Scientific Journals

If you have a look at some of these papers listed, not one mentions the current beliefs in all encompassing interatomic vacua/aethers and/or in the belief that atoms are of continuous mass volumes in “eternal kinetic” motions. And so these papers conveniently avoid these questions and regress into a patently extreme complexity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger

E.g. you believe, without any experimental evidence, that vacua/aethers “exist”.

And you draw the opposite conclusion also without experimental support. No information does not mean no existence. Without experiments we nevertheless have observations:

1. Light moves and oscillates, so something must oscillate.
2. Gravity affects matter. Something must cause a force.
3. Something is called ether.

vacua/aethers 

What do you mean? Either we have something - called ether - or we have nothing - called vacuum - meaning nothing at all.

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwe%3DAVQ7Vkf26C-hGrppK9ppkcy%2BXtVt3Ep3QA0LS2yDxQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

John Erik,

You say:- "Something must cause a force" and "light moves and oscillates, so something must oscillate" indeed but then you say - "something is called ether" and on this pure assumption the evidently and totally unexaminable "vacuum" is "filled" with another hypothetical and totally unexaminable, non-vacuous aetherial "something".

Below is the conclusion to my Continuous Magnetic Atoms paper, which you say you have read, but this quote is what is generally stated in theoretical physics literature:-

“The solar atmosphere is actually a vacuum by most standards”

https://www.britannica.com/place/Sun/Solar-atmosphere

Continuous Magnetic Atoms:-

So, in terms of current theory, the atmosphere is composed of vacuous atoms in eternal kinetic motion in an extra-atomic vacuum, and in this case there is absolutely no possibility of the transmission of a force, e.g. between the material structures of the Earth and the Moon, or that of the Sun.

You are all aware of this but conveniently ignore it and, as this interaction is evident, believe that someday someone will be able to explain it in such hypothetical terms.

I do not.

However it is patently obvious that there are forces acting to maintain the orbital motions of both bodies.

So you have two options, either continue believing in this impossibility, or accept that there is a fundamental fault with this theoretical base.

Facts:-

It is stated that one cubic centimetre of atmosphere at the Earth’s surface is composed of (an inconceivable number) 25 x 10¹⁸ atoms.

It is observed that a ray of light entering the Earth’s atmosphere is refracted and coincidentally that its velocity is fractionally reduced.

This can only be due to interactions with the gaseous matter of the atmosphere, in other words with the component material of the atmosphere, the atoms.

But you all believe that this force that you call “gravity” can act through an absolute vacuum.

In the diagram below the atoms depicted between the Earth and the Moon are each representative of innumerable numbers of atoms in reality.

In accordance with the observed collective densities of atoms with altitude from the Earth’s surface these atoms increase in volume and decrease in mass density, as is indicated by the rapid evaporation of liquid mercury, as is observed in experiments.

As is shown in this video link where it can only be concluded that mercury atoms individually expand in volume and that their individual mass densities are lower than that of the combined atmospheric gases.

The observed continuous evaporation of mercury from the liquid state, and the rapid elevation of the gas (which according to theory is composed of atoms of 200 amu) up into the atmosphere, as shown in this video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpZF88fqrl8

In which it is stated that the rate of evaporation doubles with an 18^oC rise in temperature.

The mass densities of the atmosphere patently decreases with increase in altitude.

Two options:-

1) Vacuous atoms in vacuum, which patently does not work.

2) Continuous magnetic atoms which expand (and contract) with input (emission) of energy and fractionally decrease (increase) in mass density and accordingly increase (decrease) in fluidity.

In conclusion the mythical, one way, force of ‘gravity’ does not ‘exist’, there is just one ultimate force acting universally between individual atoms that are composed entirely of matter, which force is also acting between two massive iron spheres suspended in proximity on 40 metre long cables, and is observed to act throughout a spherical volume of over 4 metres diameter of atmosphere around a 5cm long neodymium magnet, and which is acting between the Earth and the Moon and between vast galaxies.

All atoms in the universe are magnetic and extend their internally generated N-S fields externally to adjacent atoms and these, relatively weak, individual fields of generate the magnetic field that is observed to be generated by the Earth at its surface, from and through and atmosphere composed of 25 x 10¹⁸ atoms per cubic centimetre.

Magnetism is the ultimate universal force.

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUBDxQb2aa7p6jUtj5ZQb_9Jw1xdJePsV8iwM3v1v3WGPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger

Vacuum is not real but an illusion caused by subatomic and undetectable particles moving in all directions and thereby constituting the ether. This idea was presented by Fatio 300 years ago, but abolished in error, since action at a distance is impossible. However, action at a distance is not demanded, since gravity is emergent inside matter due to the ether, as I said in "The Unavoidable Ether". See also the attachment here "Emergent Gravity without Aberration".

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwdDetuY3-gdk3v8t_wpfFrZYytn7RfMiTfiU%3DgZGqpz9g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

John Erik,

You say "vacuum is not real but an illusion", indeed it is the antithesis of reality.

But for you to say that it is "caused" by totally undetectable "subatomic particles constituting the ether" is just another illusion.

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUAi6cUmFtWgKVQTckC4L_oQMGBF5%3D4BiEO-CVPhXAM02g%40mail.gmail.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger

is just another illusion.

You have no argument for this. Illusion is just a possibility and not a necessity.

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwfycOqSuxMrjzzZkxjVVgeuOaAyy2R47ZYC0MzOi0%2BM7A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

John Erik,

Illusion - " a misrepresentation of the true state of affairs".

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUAY4ccTisS9-pgbchK1U8V8-RX8KhX3kHBdOKfiA6zW9Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

John Erik,

You say:- "Illusion is  just a possibility".

Illusion - 1) "a misrepresentation of the true state of affairs", 2) "a figment of the imagination".

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUAY4ccTisS9-pgbchK1U8V8-RX8KhX3kHBdOKfiA6zW9Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger

You said that my idea was an illusion. I said that 'illusion' was not a necessary  conclusion - only a possibility. You cannot disprove me and I cannot disprove you. So, we can agree to disagree.

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwcgwyKf3mwjgXQTHqA3mdXt9Nqf21Lv0aH_ZpdvTKM21g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

John Erik,

You say:-

"I said that 'illusion' was not a necessary  conclusion - only a possibility."

Illusion - 1) "a misrepresentation of the true state of affairs", 2) "a figment of the imagination".

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUAQvhz6%3DEx_UM6pBNLL5C1Vq%3DyKA%3DgM-rdPo%3Ds3_CFCtw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

Roger

I said:

You cannot disprove me and I cannot disprove you. So, we can agree to disagree.

Do you agree?

Do you have some new arguments?

Have you read my article?

Did you understand my article?

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwfz0Nt7_WrS51Lov9a%3D_9efC0OJghfVCZa3e%3DmrKjCqCw%40mail.gmail.com.