Laurent wrote:
But the gravitational aether can be felt.

Gravity is curvature of the spacetime manifold. It is not a substance.

Bob Kolker

Laurent wrote:

Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits.

Empty space is not a substance.

Bob Kolker

Dear Laurent:

"Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4835b7bd-89d0-4643-ae29-f0b67348fc02@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 1, 10:23 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:

Dear leonmaure:

leonma...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:793d3e50-a2fd-49f1-9a59-2e99a72b4758@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
...

Where did the light particles come from?

They are quantum exchange particles between
two charged particles.
Explain particle pair creation without aether or
any energy sources.  Isn't there a law against
that in your text book?  :)

Without "energy sources"?  Where did that idiocy come from?
Explanations without aether are simple a straightforward.

...

When they move. What do they move through?

The Universe in Maxwell, and they don't move
through anything in QM.
Right, space is an extension of matter.

.. and energy.  But only in classical theories.  In QM, space is
nonsequitur... so far.

Einstein said,

He died in 1955. There is no religion with His
name on it.
Right, but he was a Pantheist.

Says nothing about where Science has gone since 1915 or so...

"Light is pure energy" and "Energy is space in
motion." Therefore, a light particle has be
composed of energy waves.

No.
Light is wave and particle, it's called photons or
quanta.

These labels you attach to light are a function of the model used
to describe them in relation to the system you define.  

You say
something about the butcher's thumb, and not the meat on the
scale.

Relativity theory says they have to be
something substantial. Q.E.D.

No. In fact, it says they cannot have any
substance at all.
That depends on what your definition of a
substance is.

In aether, light is "ripples in"... no substance inherent to
light there either.

No matter what you call it,
it's still aether, or empty (of form) space.

There is no empty space.
Right, just like there are no point particles.

Who said that?  Electrons and photons... there is no collision
where "bumpers" meet, where new unique particles resolve.

So, the MMX proved nothing.

It disproved an aether that was unique to
light alone.
It proved they didn't understand the nature of
the aether.

You don't either.  Will you be droll about your own
misconceptions too, as you are about people that died ~100 years
ago?

Since the aether is the root of all earthly
matter

Impossible to prove.
The proof is that we are here.

Fails.

There can be aether without fields but there
can be no fields without aether.

Yes, there can be.  There is no empty space, and what "waves"
with the passage of light is *us*.

Aether is empty space and fields are shapes
drawn by matter as process (spacetime) takes
place.  Matter and space are one and the same
autopoietic process.

Word salad.  

And we again come full circle.

In a diffraction experiment, any finite geometry yields non-zero
diffraction.  Both the diffracted particle and the slit
"material" are expressed across each bit of "empty" space.
Subtract that effect out, and the need for an aether ceases to
be.

David A. Smith

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.  

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).

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...

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:31:09 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"

bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:
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?

"Laurent" <cyberd...@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" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"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."

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.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator  sci.physics.foundations

luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
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.

Also, we have are two current diametrically-opposed models of physics
telling us two things. We're told that Relativity disproves the Aether,
but Einstein himself only said that it only removes the need to consider
it in calculations, not that it doesn't exist. Meanwhile, we have the
Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics happily telling us that space must
be composed of something (i.e. there are absolute reference frames in
QM), which might as well be the Aether.

The old model of the solid Æther may be dead, but a fluid æther seems to
be emerging. Even in cosmology, there's the new theory that combines
Dark Matter with Dark Energy which is being called Dark Fluid. Dark
Fluid by any other name is aether.

        Yousuf Khan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:

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".

EM fields are NOT space filling substances. They are not substances.

Fields, yes. No aether.

If you call a tail a leg how many legs does a dog have?

Answer: 4. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.

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.

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".

On Apr 5, 8:03 am, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:

Laurent wrote:
But the gravitational aether can be felt.

Gravity is curvature of the spacetime manifold. It is not a substance.

Bob Kolker

gravitation is caused space flowing
into matter. Space flow

--
Laurent

I am starting to think that matter pops up where there is too little
or less dense, as if it were Nature fighting against fragmentation,
giving rise to objects like Seyferts and Quasars where it is less
dense and black holes where there is too much.

On Apr 5, 8:03 am, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:

Laurent wrote:

Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits.

Empty space is not a substance.

Bob Kolker

Empty space is immaterial, it does not exist but it can act on matter,
therefore, it is physical. That makes it a thing, or... a substance.
Einstein was right.

--
Laurent

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.