No, space is material (grainy) and gravitation is caused space flowing
into matter. Space flow being caused by electromotive forces. Space
curvature is caused by matter in space, space being an extension of
matter. Matter and space are one and the same thing.

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.

Then, tell us where does that energy comes
from?

Give us your simple and straightforward
explanation.

Right, space is an extension of matter.

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

In QM space is grainy.

Empty space is not. Empty space has the
same properties of a point, it is
dimensionless.

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.

Oh, so what labels do you attach to light?

That depends on what your definition of a
substance is.

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

That's in 19th century aethers. In Einstein's
GTR the aether does not exist,

that's why he says the Universe in background
free.

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.

The Billiard Ball model is obsolete.

Particles have a volume, a diameter, therefore,
can't be considered to be points.

The points in a line a not real, neither are the
lines. Those are mathematical objects.

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.

To you.

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.

What?

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.

Laurent wrote:



The Standard Model has no real explanation, just like it can't explain
gravity, inertia nor action-at-a-distance.

It predicts accurately and has never been falsified. That is all that
matters. There is no why. There is only what, when and how.

It [Standard Model] tends to falsify Relativity, doesn't it? Relativity has as a basic
principle, no absolute reference frame, but Standard Model depends on an
absolute reference frame. Background dependence vs. background
independence. Take your pick, both are true depending on which model you
pick.

Yousuf Khan

On Apr 9, 8:54 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

There is the "bud" theory of matter, but I used to hang with a
physicist who used to always say that "electrons don't exist"! His
theory (and it's not a particularly new one) was that electrons
actually ARE the proverbial "true vacuum" of space represented by a
"hole" in the aether. Matter supposedly works like this. electrons
are vortexes in space that in fact open a "true vacuum" hole and hence
are actually LESS than nothing. The vortex in the aether that creates
this hole actually spews aether out in to the fourth dimension. That
"wormhole" actually arcs over and comes to rest on a positive charge.
Now protons are NOT vortex "hole" entities, but rather tiny "frozen"
bits of solid aether. Light and radiation tend to cause them to want
to expand back up to a gaseous state but the aether supplied by the
electron's "wormholes" stabilizes the Proton and hence one gets what
we see as matter with a reasonable degree of stability. "Atomic"
energy is actually simply the energy represented by the mass of the
proton expanding back to a gaseous state. You can see that
electrostatic "coulomb" forces are actually due to the elasticity of
the aether-transporting wormhole in the 4th dimension.

That's it.

On Apr 6, 1:44 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"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.

Also know as aether...

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."

The quantum vacumm moves? Isn't it a void, as in 'not matter'? How can
an immaterial substance move?

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.

The quantum refers to a quantum of energy, in other words, an amount
of energy... the smallest amount of energy as far as we know.
Information (geometry) starts with the quantum. Existence starts with
the quantum. Before the quantum there is the aether. There can be an
aether without quanta but there can be no quanta without an aether.
The aether is before matter and it is dimensionless, like a point...
yet, it contains the Universe.

On Apr 9, 8:54 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

There is the "bud" theory of matter, but I used to hang with a
physicist who used to always say that "electrons don't exist"! His
theory (and it's not a particularly new one) was that electrons
actually ARE the proverbial "true vacuum" of space represented by a
"hole" in the aether.

Matter supposedly works like this. electrons
are vortexes in space that in fact open a "true vacuum" hole and hence
are actually LESS than nothing.

The vortex in the aether that creates
this hole actually spews aether out in to the fourth dimension. That
"wormhole" actually arcs over and comes to rest on a positive charge.
Now protons are NOT vortex "hole" entities, but rather tiny "frozen"
bits of solid aether. Light and radiation tend to cause them to want
to expand back up to a gaseous state but the aether supplied by the
electron's "wormholes" stabilizes the Proton and hence one gets what
we see as matter with a reasonable degree of stability. "Atomic"
energy is actually simply the energy represented by the mass of the
proton expanding back to a gaseous state. You can see that
electrostatic "coulomb" forces are actually due to the elasticity of
the aether-transporting wormhole in the 4th dimension.

That's it.

On Apr 9, 6:13 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Apr 6, 1:44 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"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.

Also know as aether...

Whatever; no since haggling over a name.

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."

The quantum vacumm moves? Isn't it a void, as in 'not matter'? How can
an immaterial substance move?

The quantum "vacuum" as a relativistic medium would not be a void but
exists in the void of empty space.  Not necessarily an "immaterial
substance" either.  But also not matter.

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.

The quantum refers to a quantum of energy, in other words, an amount
of energy... the smallest amount of energy as far as we know.
Information (geometry) starts with the quantum. Existence starts with
the quantum. Before the quantum there is the aether. There can be an
aether without quanta but there can be no quanta without an aether.
The aether is before matter and it is dimensionless, like a point...
yet, it contains the Universe.

Not necessarily.  What if the quantum "vacuum" (aether) is composed of
quanta in some kind of a neutral configuration?

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator  sci.physics.foundations- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Laurent wrote:

The Standard Model has no real explanation, just like it can't explain
gravity, inertia nor action-at-a-distance.

It predicts accurately and has never been falsified. That is all that
matters. There is no why. There is only what, when and how.

Bob Kolker

Laurent wrote:

No, space is material (grainy) and gravitation is caused space flowing
into matter. Space flow being caused by electromotive forces. Space
curvature is caused by matter in space, space being an extension of
matter. Matter and space are one and the same thing.

Gravitation obeys different laws from electrodynamics.  Gravitational
fields gravitate. Electromagentic fields have no charge.

And there is no aether. Anything explained by aether can be exaplained
without aether and it has never, ever been detected or measured. Ever.

Bob Kolker

As for SR, it has been already shown as the first step that there is
another approach to the Lorentz transformation without peculiar

On Apr 9, 7:13 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:





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

Empty space does indeed exist. Yes, it is a physical thing.

Bob says it's not a substance. This is true according to the standard
model.

But in my opinion it is not merely a substance, it is the _only_
substance which exists. There is only 1 element in my periodic chart -
and it's symbol is D for Dimension.

Traditionally, space is an empty place where substances are found
floating around. Substances are composed of energy and space is not.

I disagree with that view, and it is the basis of my kookery.

The only way to make sense of the universe is to model randomness as
if it were a fluid embedded in length. Expected values vary, which
results in different "expected lengths", causing compressions and
rarefactions of length itself.

 You do not need the concept of energy at all. All you need is
dimension. And by modulating the amount and distribution of randomness
embedded in that length one can easily bend space any way you like.
The dynamics can be as complicated as you wish.

   The question I'm wrestling with is whether mathematics is
determined or not. I always thought that it must be, but now I am
beginning to believe that the question as to whether mathematics is
determined or not cannot be answered. I believe it is indeterminate.
   It seems that mathematical relationships are out there regardless
of man, and we simply discover them as we go along. But here is a
question to consider. We cannot really prove that randomness exists.
So, is probability theory "valid" ? Knowing that it is based on the
premise that randomness exists ? And if randomness does not exist,
then probability theory is really just an interesting looking
contraption which has no actual validity because it is based on a
false premise, namely the existence of randomness. But if randomness
does indeed exist, then probability theory is validated.
   So - we go back for a moment to the question of whether mathematics
is itself in some sense "determined". There is a fork in the road.
Either probability theory is mathematical fact, or it is not. I dont
think that there is an absolute answer, because we cannot answer
whether randomness exists or not. We cannot know whether probability
theory would neccesarily be included or excluded from a
"deterministic" mathematics - even if we are to contemplate an
ehaustive hypothetical structure where every possible theorem and
lemma has been completely and exhaustively pieced together in some
hypothetical logical superstructure i.e. a "completed" mathematics.

Seems there are some things which "cannot" be answered conclusively.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 10, 1:03 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On Apr 9, 7:13 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Empty space does indeed exist. Yes, it is a physical thing.

Bob says it's not a substance. This is true according to the standard
model.

But in my opinion it is not merely a substance, it is the _only_
substance which exists. There is only 1 element in my periodic chart -
and it's symbol is D for Dimension.

Traditionally, space is an empty place where substances are found
floating around. Substances are composed of energy and space is not.

I disagree with that view, and it is the basis of my kookery.

The only way to make sense of the universe is to model randomness as
if it were a fluid embedded in length. Expected values vary, which
results in different "expected lengths", causing compressions and
rarefactions of length itself.

 You do not need the concept of energy at all. All you need is
dimension. And by modulating the amount and distribution of randomness
embedded in that length one can easily bend space any way you like.
The dynamics can be as complicated as you wish.

   The question I'm wrestling with is whether mathematics is
determined or not. I always thought that it must be, but now I am
beginning to believe that the question as to whether mathematics is
determined or not cannot be answered. I believe it is indeterminate.
   It seems that mathematical relationships are out there regardless
of man, and we simply discover them as we go along. But here is a
question to consider. We cannot really prove that randomness exists.
So, is probability theory "valid" ? Knowing that it is based on the
premise that randomness exists ? And if randomness does not exist,
then probability theory is really just an interesting looking
contraption which has no actual validity because it is based on a
false premise, namely the existence of randomness. But if randomness
does indeed exist, then probability theory is validated.
   So - we go back for a moment to the question of whether mathematics
is itself in some sense "determined". There is a fork in the road.
Either probability theory is mathematical fact, or it is not. I dont
think that there is an absolute answer, because we cannot answer
whether randomness exists or not. We cannot know whether probability
theory would neccesarily be included or excluded from a
"deterministic" mathematics - even if we are to contemplate an
ehaustive hypothetical structure where every possible theorem and
lemma has been completely and exhaustively pieced together in some
hypothetical logical superstructure i.e. a "completed" mathematics.

Seems there are some things which "cannot" be answered conclusively.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mathematics are just a tool and randomness is as real as matter is.

--
Laurent- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -