| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits
Page 3 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Androcles |
 Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 4:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:65r6e9F2gt2q5U1@mid.individual.net...
| "Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:854417cb-9999-4e71-ab7b-a7bc9026105a@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
|
| > Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits.
|
| Well, that doesn't make much sense. You don't help your case much with
| a statement like that. Empty space (the void) is the stage that ether
| and *other* quantum objects play on.
|
| Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
| Helium Droplet"
Well, that doesn't make much sense. In fact it is fucking stupid
and nothing like what it is, Volovik says it like it isn't. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) |
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 11:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Benj:
"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:483e7416-c055-4346-94b2-b471c11f7dab@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Apr 6, 1:44 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
Most likely we just don't know what all the
quantum objects are yet. Or their possible
interactional configurations. Hopefully we
will get some more clues after the LHC
has been running for awhile.
Well, provided it doesn't open a black hole
and the earth gets sucked into it...
Let us hope Hawking was right, then. That way, if we do manage
to make a classical black hole out of a few nucleii, it will
entirely evaporate in a tiny super hot fireball in fractions of a
second.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| FrediFizzx |
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:483e7416-c055-4346-94b2-b471c11f7dab@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Apr 6, 1:44 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental
medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st
century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."
Actually this doesn't make much sense either! I don't mean the
existence of some medium which is the basis of the four basic
interactions, but rather the name "quantum vacuum". It is obvious
that since it represents properties of space, it cannot be a "void" or
a "vacuum". It should properly be called the "quantum aether" to
eliminate the misleading name. But establishment physics is SO set on
denying the existence of classical aether that they spew the "vacuum"
dogma even in the face of irrefutable evidence that space is filled
with some kind of interesting substance.
Well, we could haggle over a name or discuss what a modern ether might
be that Volovik is talking about. I prefer the latter. The main issue
that I see is does empty space by itself have certain geometric
properties or does the geometric properties that we notice simply come
from the interaction of quantum objects (known and unknown)? I suspect
that the space and time that we know and love are defined by the
interactions of said quantum objects. And that is basically what
Volovik found out from his studies of superfluid helium. Of course it
is just an analogy but I think a possible scenario.
Quote: Which raises and even MORE
interesting question: If space is filled with Quantum Aether, is it
somehow possible to create a "hole" in that aether which would
actually BE a "true" vacuum or void? In other words a space devoid of
all properties (including the four interactions).
How big of a hole? ;-)
Quote: Most likely we just don't know what all the quantum objects are yet.
Or
their possible interactional configurations. Hopefully we will get
some
more clues after the LHC has been running for awhile.
Well, provided it doesn't open a black hole and the earth gets sucked
into it...
Quantum black holes would be very unstable and decay rapidly provided
LHC could even produce one which I doubt it can. Many people were
worried about a similar situation with RHIC; it didn't happen. I'm not
worried about it even the tiniest bit. Smash away!  We have
quantum objects hitting the earth's atmosphere with more energy than LHC
already.
Best,
Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John C. Polasek |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:31:09 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<bobkolker@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: Laurent wrote:
Right, it does not exist as matter but it is, like God.
So you believe. But you don't know. In addition the Aether of Maxwell (a
super stiff space filling goo that was rarer than virtue) was falsified
by the MMX.
Aether makes no sense. Light is particles. It does not need a medium.
Bob Kolker
How do particles make redshift? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Autymn D. C. |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 6, 9:48 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
wrote:
Quote: Dear Benj:
"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:483e7416-c055-4346-94b2-b471c11f7dab@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 6, 1:44 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
Most likely we just don't know what all the
quantum objects are yet. Or their possible
interactional configurations. Hopefully we
will get some more clues after the LHC
has been running for awhile.
Well, provided it doesn't open a black hole
and the earth gets sucked into it...
Let us hope Hawking was right, then. That way, if we do manage
to make a classical black hole out of a few nucleii, it will
entirely evaporate in a tiny super hot fireball in fractions of a
second.
nuclei
Well, how do they make a classic black hole if black holes are
relativistic? They don't. Classic dark stars cannot make any dumb
event horizon as their mass is finite. We are safe if Hawking is
wrong--and he was for the destruction of information.
For further talks about "black hole", substitut "unicorn".
-Aut |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Autymn D. C. |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Aristotle never wrote "unchangeability" as he in Hellènic could tell
between not-/non-/mè- and un-/de-/cse-. What in the hell unchanges?
a spring, maybe. That which unchanges changes.
There are no illusions, only delusions. Matter is neither.
ether
1398, from L. æther "the upper pure, bright air," from Gk. aither
"upper air," from aithein "to burn, shine," from I.E. base *aidh- "to
burn" (cf. Skt. inddhe "burst into flames," O.Ir. aed "fire," L.
aedes, see edify). In ancient cosmology, the element that filled all
space beyond the sphere of the moon, constituting the substance of the
stars and planets. Conceived of as a purer form of fire or air, or as
a fifth element. From 17c.-19c., it was the scientific word for an
assumed "frame of reference" for forces in the universe, perhaps
without material properties. The concept was shaken by the Michelson-
Morley experiment (1887) and discarded after the Theory of Relativity
won acceptance, but before it went it gave rise to the colloquial use
of ether for "the radio" (1899). The name also was bestowed 1757 on a
volatile chemical compound for its lightness and lack of color (its
anesthetic properties weren't fully established until 1842).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
Ah, it happens "aither" is another word for "welkin". In modern
terms, this aither is the elèctric farfield; in order for the field to
support waves--which come in massive plasmòns--it's neither empty/void
nor heftles.
And Laurent, you should already know my mathematic proof which lets
the acceleration of matter to celerity with finite energy.
-Aut |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Autymn D. C. |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 1, 7:11 am, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 1, 8:57 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:
Dear Laurent:
"Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4703c16-c2a7-456b-b170-9427ce6f3601@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 1, 12:21 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:
Dear Laurent:
"Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e563fff-7b70-4f5b-b364-cd6f4559bcd6@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com....
Empty spaceis real but does not exist as matter,
right?
Empty spacedoes not exist.
Right, that's what I said.
No, you said "empty spaceis real". It is not real. Then you
rambled on about how the aether is necessary to fill up this
"real"empty space.
David A. Smith
You can be without existing as matter, but you can't exist without
being.
mauvais poisson--nous le rejetez |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Autymn D. C. |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 1, 4:31 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: Laurent wrote:
Right, it does not exist as matter but it is, like God.
So you believe. But you don't know. In addition the Aether of Maxwell (a
super stiff space filling goo that was rarer than virtue) was falsified
by the MMX.
Aether makes no sense. Light is particles. It does not need a medium.
Dolt, you don't read my posts. A quantum/whit is not a mote; it's a
division of a wave. Neither is $1 a mote. Waves need a medium--where
the old aither is the new field. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Autymn D. C. |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 2, 1:14 am, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: Benj wrote:
Oh great. Two kooks arguing "religion"!
Hey Bob, Once again, Saying that Aether has never been observed is a
lie. Empty space has PROPERTIES therefore, aether has been observed!
How about you keep your religion in church? The failure was not to
observe Aether but rather a failure to observe Aether Drift! Quite a
different matter.
Aether, according to Maxwell is super stiff space filling goo that is so
rare it does not slow planets down in their orbits. Maxwell did not
believe space was aether. Neither did Michelson nor Morley.
Of course it doesn't slow planèts; aither's role is elèctric, not
gravital. Gravity has its own barther which does the dragging and
boosting. Each is a goo inasmuch as it supports currents or frame-
dragging.
Quote: Aether is an unnecessary and useless concept. Which is why it has been
largely dropped from physics. It has suffered the same fate as
phlogiston, caloric, electric fluid and vital essence.
Wrong, it's needsom and useful. Which is why "fysysysts" save face by
callan im the EM field.
flogiston is the Lewis base, usually hydrogen or carbon. In organics,
the flammabil element is a methylene-methylidyne admixture.
caloric is the binding mass-energy. Which is why the scientists can
interconvert Q and m.
elèctric fluor is elèctric corona and current.
vital essense is adenosine triphosphate.
You flunk out of usenet.
-Aut |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| dlzc |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Autymn D. C.:
On Apr 8, 1:14 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 6, 9:48 am, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:
"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:483e7416-c055-4346-94b2-b471c11f7dab@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 6, 1:44 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
Most likely we just don't know what all the
quantum objects are yet. Or their possible
interactional configurations. Hopefully we
will get some more clues after the LHC
has been running for awhile.
Well, provided it doesn't open a black hole
and the earth gets sucked into it...
Let us hope Hawking was right, then. That
way, if we do manage to make a classical
black hole out of a few nucleii, it will entirely
evaporate in a tiny super hot fireball in
fractions of a second.
nuclei
Well, how do they make a classic black hole
if black holes are relativistic?
Colliding very energetic nucleii. Already been done at lower energy
levels, and Hawking radiation resulted. Search on "dual to black
hole".
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Autymn D. C. |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 8, 7:12 am, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
Quote: Dear Autymn D. C.:
On Apr 8, 1:14 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Apr 6, 9:48 am, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:
"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:483e7416-c055-4346-94b2-b471c11f7dab@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com....
On Apr 6, 1:44 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
Most likely we just don't know what all the
quantum objects are yet. Or their possible
interactional configurations. Hopefully we
will get some more clues after the LHC
has been running for awhile.
Well, provided it doesn't open a black hole
and the earth gets sucked into it...
Let us hope Hawking was right, then. That
way, if we do manage to make a classical
black hole out of a few nucleii, it will entirely
evaporate in a tiny super hot fireball in
fractions of a second.
nuclei
Well, how do they make a classic black hole
if black holes are relativistic?
Colliding very energetic nucleii. Already been done at lower energy
levels, and Hawking radiation resulted. Search on "dual to black
hole".
nuclei, retard
And you said this wasn't a classic black hole--of course it's neither,
and not even. As I said, it's a dark star of a (not the) limitant
pionic [collapsar] nucleus. You wouldn't call a quark star a black
hole. Hm, as it's a pionic soliton, I wonder if my
http://google.com/groups?q=Planck-charge is a elèctronic soliton.
-Aut |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:47 am |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 5, 4:03 am, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: Laurent wrote:
But the gravitational aether can be felt.
Gravity is curvature of the spacetime manifold. It is not a substance.
Bob Kolker
Wrong. Geomtery is the substance of space dimension. Period.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| dlzc |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 8, 1:32 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 8, 7:12 am,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
Colliding very energetic nucleii. Already been done
at lower energy levels, and Hawking radiation resulted.
Search on "dual to black hole".
nuclei, retard
nucleii, 31800 hits
Just because others dick around with the language, doesn't mean you
have to follow them around like a little puppy. The meaning was
clear.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:34 am |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 2, 10:14 am, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: Benj wrote:
Oh great. Two kooks arguing "religion"!
Hey Bob, Once again, Saying that Aether has never been observed is a
lie. Empty space has PROPERTIES therefore, aether has been observed!
How about you keep your religion in church? The failure was not to
observe Aether but rather a failure to observe Aether Drift! Quite a
different matter.
Aether, according to Maxwell is super stiff space filling goo that is so
rare it does not slow planets down in their orbits. Maxwell did not
believe space was aether. Neither did Michelson nor Morley.
Aether is an unnecessary and useless concept. Which is why it has been
largely dropped from physics. It has suffered the same fate as
phlogiston, caloric, electric fluid and vital essence.
Bob Kolker
Those concepts did not disappear, they became better understood and
renamed. Now, we have Oxygen, heat, electrons, and metabolism.
Similarly the aether is still with us, only you must now use words
such as "electromagnetic field", "space-time", or even "quantum
foam".
I won't repeat the 1920s Einstein quote you know so well about how the
aether does exist.
The word needs to be avoided when possible in publications now.
However nobody will deny that in empty space there exists:
An electromagnetic field, a gravitational field (g_uv if you like).
Whether you like to consider this as "substance", "aether" or
something else is up to you.
Cheers - lukas |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Laurent |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 5, 8:01 am, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: Laurent wrote:
Explain particle pair creation without aether or any energy sources.
Isn't there a law against that in your text book? :)
Read any book on the Standard Model for that.
There is no aether.
Bob Kolker
The Standard Model has no real explanation, just like it can't explain
gravity, inertia nor action-at-a-distance.
Particles come to existence as required by spacetime conditions, but
what do they feed from, where do they get their energy from?
Once a particle forms it needs to continuosly reset its structure
according to spacetime conditions. It can't exist independently from
spacetime. The Billiard Ball model is obsolete and so is the Standard
Model.
--
Laurent |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 3 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:43 pm
|
|