Dear Paul Stowe:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:56:12 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1
D:cox wrote:

Dear Paul Stowe:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 12:47:05 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1
D:cox wrote:

[Snip...]

Quantum mechanics doesn't require distance, only yields it up
"statistically". No distance, no volume. No volume no need
for aether.

All QM is is "statistical"... Look at the new issue of
Scientific
American. Just because we can deal with something
"statistically"
does not mean there is no underlying processes. In fact, that we
can deal "statistically" with it strongly suggests otherwise. I
perfer SED's philosophical foundation.

Preferences notwithstanding, the statistical results of QM don't
rely on distance. Your argment is invalid.

Show us an example... I don't understand where you're coming from.

An example of QM that *does* rely on distance? I don't know of one.

No, doesn't. Show us an equational example that has no reference to
length. That means no speed, no momentum, no Planck's constant, no
wave'length', ... etc!

First of all, note that momentum is simply energy with direction... so
therefore should not be "edicted out".

Direction has no valid meaning without the concept of length.

Doesn't follow. r*theta has length meaning, theta alone does not.

Quantum mechanics:, let's see:

- Pauli exclusion,

Exclusion from what?

Quantum states.

- spin conservation,

What's spin without length?

A unit vector.

- Schroedinger solutions

-iEt2pi/h
psi(x,t) = fee(x)e

has no valid meaning without x (a length parameter).

Does, actually.

Well enough. If you invoke quantum mechanics, you give up
aether,
and a good deal of relativity as well. The "integration" into
spacetime becomes illusion.

No that's very funny given that SR is founded upon illusion.
That of the observer-centric perspective...

As noted, SR, GR and LET *fail* at the quantum level. And QM
doesn't seem (yet) to yield up spacetime (on any particular base,
aether or not).

All continuum based processes 'fail' at a small enough scale.
Didn't
you learn this in basic kinetic theory?

And so aether *fails* at a small enough scale. So that the aether,
if
it exists, is also a statistical illusion.

Even IF you're trying to base you argument solely upon the Continuum
domain I think it is invalid.

Detection of an aetheron will tell all, won't it? What are the
properties
of this force moderator, by the way?

What force moderator? If the aetheron is a simple particle there is no
force moderator. The particles physically interact without any
non-contact
moderation. Agreed that this is an assumption, but the KISS princple
applies.

Right, since aetherons are only required to "evoke" distance, and QM
doesn't require distance, KISS demands that there be no aetherons

Wow, all in one long sentence! The length of that sentence alone
should have pushed something into orbit. I notice you and your
kin are as far from interstellar drive as the rest of us. So you
are wasting your energy justifying the unnecessary. How nice.

Where & when did an 'interstellar drive' enter into this
thread???

The point being, energy wasted to "justifying" an aether that must
remain undetectable to agree with experiment,

You (and others) have a very strange & uncommon notion of
'detectable'. The aether is detected, continuously.

You seem to have a very strange & uncommon definition of
"detectable".
Since your "detection" is a null result.

If, by 'detection' you solely mean so-called absolute motion that
isn't
even Null, the CMBR reveals it quite nicely, TYVM.

"TYVM"? "Thank You Bery Much"?

Pretty much ...

However, as you're also well aware, mediums be they gaseous, fluidic,
solid, superfluidic, or supersolid have one common BASIC
characteristic.
That is, the native ability to propagate non-contact forces. No other
physical process is known to have this.

Non-contact forces don't exist in quantum mechanics, or had you
forgotten
this?

No I haven't. I disagree with your interpretation here.

QM doesn't have "force at a distance". No distance, no medium.

All forces are moderated by particles. Aggregates (aka fields) are
statistical illusion.

Well, those 'illusions' are what being debated, right

Not in QM its not. What is being debated is what path gets us from these
"nuts and bolts" to the "Universal System". And will be argued for some
time.

Lack of detection is not detection. Any more than "the size of the
photon is experimentally indistinguishable from 0" is detection of
size.

I do not 'artifically' limit my scope of the word 'detection' solely
to ONE arcane thing!

But you do. The motion wrt the CMBR does not require an aether in its
complete description. You may choose to write one in, just as Einstein
(and Mach in some sense) provided "extensions of mass/energy". But at
the
quantum level, the "CMBR anisotropy" is simply interactions between
photons
and charges.

The CMBR is an isotropic 'sea' of photons. Any motion wrt to it is thus
revealed as an anistropic Doppler shift.

Who says the CMBR is stationary? It might be convenient to imagine it
so... but two boats bobbing up and down simultaneously appear to be
*relatively* stationary. Doesn't mean they are.

... and made moot by quantum mechanics anyway, ...

No it isn't, IMO...

As you choose.

... is not advancing the cause of mankind. Just my opinion of
course.

You're entitled to your opinion

You're also entitled to not be mocked or harassed because of it...

I haven't felt so. I do feel a little like I stepped into a hornets
nest, though... You and Freddi are keeping level tones. We'll see
about Ole. I'll see if I can keep from "flaming" as Greywolf42 has
so often accused me of.

Welcome to the club , as you've seen, we get it all the time.

I hope you don't feel like I'm flaming, ...

Not at all. I do detect a tinge of sarcasm from time to time. That
is tolerable.

Whew! I respect the "job" of "conscientious objector". It does help one
keep one's tools sharp.

... because I'm not intending to. It is just interesting that a
continuum
is being "pressed into" quantum mechanics, where a continuum (aka
aether)
is not a solution.

The sea of energetic 'quantum objesct' and that which constitute them
yields the solutions & basic nature we call quatum mechanics. It IS
ultimately, statistical in nature.

No. The illusion is statistical in nature. Nothing about the "foundation"
is so bound.

Neither is SR or GR a "solution".

They can't be.

*Sigh*.

David A. Smith

"Paul Stowe" skrev i en meddelelse
...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:14:24 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

"Jim Clark" wrote in message
...

[Snip...]

| Unfortunately for Kelvin--who believed smoke rings collapse through
| viscous effects or turbulence, and ideal vortex-rings could exist
| forever--his theory was disproved. In 1977, Sheila Widnall and
Charles
| Tsai did a more careful analysis of vortex- ring stability that
showed
| they are inherently unstable. The instability of vortex rings
occurs
| in the form of bending waves around the perimeter, which grow in
| amplitude as time proceeds, leading to the ultimate collapse of
even
| an ideal vortex ring.

Except they and you are missing an important concept pertaining to
the
quantum vacuum. "Linked vortices". The quantum vacuum is a network
of
linked vortices (coupled oscillators) that would in fact support each
other
and be stable throughout the entire Universe. You got to look at the
big
picture. Of course there is no way one measly vortex is going to be
stable
or even just a few. Read Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium
Droplet" for
important clues. However, you have to think of these vortices,
quantum
mechanically. Here is another clue. Do the point-like quantum
entities
regarding an electron and positron disappear forever when they
annihilate?
We think not. Only their configuration relative to the quantum
vacuum
changes.

I fine Jim's reference to instability quite exciting. The vortices
don't
'collapse' in the sense of losing vorticity, but break apart into
smaller
vortices. I alway wondered why, in a nearly perfect (inviscid)
medium, one
ended up with itsy-bitsy little vortices all arranged in a coupled
oscillating matrix as Maxwell proposed. I knew that there was a
physical
explanation but didn't know what. This gives us a probalbe answer.
As
for anyone not convinced that vortices ARE quantum oscillators one
need
only look at the illustartions shown in T. LEWEKEY AND C. H. K.
WILLIAMSON
work referenced below.

http://www.mae.cornell.edu/fdrl/publ...Williamson.pdf

Just look at the beautiful illustrative pictures (Page 9, 11, 18, &
29).

My guess is the vortex lattice size would seem to be determined by
the
low-wavelength cutoff. Those below this scale don't break up. Thus
they arrange themselves in coupled lattice that minimizes the energy
density of the system. PLA in 'action'

Paul Stowe


Very beautiful indeed, Paul, and of great theoretical interest.

However, I am working on a posting regarding the fine
review of historical physics we had from Jim Clark and the
relevance to the physics of Aether Theory we are dicussing.
I hope to have it posted within a few days (since other matters
have to be looked after also, and the subject needs a more
lengthy comment than first estimated).

Besides I have promised Fredi a comment to his idea of
time, which I hope he will give yet another consideration
because of its fundamental character. I presume that the
quantum mechanical illusions, we were presented, might
illustrate Fredi's subject just as illusions irrelevant to the
Aether Theory, and definitely to the GAR continuum.

Ole

"Paul Stowe" skrev i en meddelelse
...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:56:12 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1
D:cox wrote:

Dear Paul Stowe:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 12:47:05 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
N:
dlzc1
D:cox wrote:

[Snip...]

Quantum mechanics doesn't require distance, only yields it up
"statistically". No distance, no volume. No volume no need
for aether.

All QM is is "statistical"... Look at the new issue of
Scientific
American. Just because we can deal with something
"statistically"
does not mean there is no underlying processes. In fact, that
we
can deal "statistically" with it strongly suggests otherwise.
I
perfer SED's philosophical foundation.

Preferences notwithstanding, the statistical results of QM don't
rely on distance. Your argment is invalid.

Show us an example... I don't understand where you're coming
from.

An example of QM that *does* rely on distance? I don't know of
one.

No, doesn't. Show us an equational example that has no reference
to
length. That means no speed, no momentum, no Planck's constant, no
wave'length', ... etc!

First of all, note that momentum is simply energy with direction...
so
therefore should not be "edicted out".

Direction has no valid meaning without the concept of length.
Duration of time neither.

Quantum mechanics:, let's see:

- Pauli exclusion,

Exclusion from what?

- spin conservation,

What's spin without length?
- or duration in time?

- Schroedinger solutions

-iEt2pi/h
psi(x,t) = fee(x)e

has no valid meaning without x (a length parameter).
- or t (a time parameter)

Well enough. If you invoke quantum mechanics, you give up
aether,
and a good deal of relativity as well. The "integration" into
spacetime becomes illusion.

No that's very funny given that SR is founded upon illusion.
That of the observer-centric perspective...

As noted, SR, GR and LET *fail* at the quantum level. And QM
doesn't seem (yet) to yield up spacetime (on any particular
base,
aether or not).

All continuum based processes 'fail' at a small enough scale.
Didn't
you learn this in basic kinetic theory?

And so aether *fails* at a small enough scale. So that the
aether, if
it exists, is also a statistical illusion.

Even IF you're trying to base you argument solely upon the
Continuum
domain I think it is invalid.

Detection of an aetheron will tell all, won't it? What are the
properties
of this force moderator, by the way?

What force moderator? If the aetheron is a simple particle there is
no
force moderator. The particles physically interact without any
non-contact
moderation. Agreed that this is an assumption, but the KISS princple
applies.

Wow, all in one long sentence! The length of that sentence
alone
should have pushed something into orbit. I notice you and
your
kin are as far from interstellar drive as the rest of us. So
you
are wasting your energy justifying the unnecessary. How nice.

Where & when did an 'interstellar drive' enter into this
thread???

The point being, energy wasted to "justifying" an aether that
must
remain undetectable to agree with experiment,

You (and others) have a very strange & uncommon notion of
'detectable'. The aether is detected, continuously.

You seem to have a very strange & uncommon definition of
"detectable".
Since your "detection" is a null result.

If, by 'detection' you solely mean so-called absolute motion that
isn't
even Null, the CMBR reveals it quite nicely, TYVM.

"TYVM"? "Thank You Bery Much"?

Pretty much ...

However, as you're also well aware, mediums be they gaseous,
fluidic,
solid, superfluidic, or supersolid have one common BASIC
characteristic.
That is, the native ability to propagate non-contact forces. No
other
physical process is known to have this.

Non-contact forces don't exist in quantum mechanics, or had you
forgotten
this?

No I haven't. I disagree with your interpretation here.

All forces are moderated by particles. Aggregates (aka fields) are
statistical illusion.

Well, those 'illusions' are what being debated, right

Lack of detection is not detection. Any more than "the size of
the
photon is experimentally indistinguishable from 0" is detection of
size.

I do not 'artifically' limit my scope of the word 'detection'
solely
to ONE arcane thing!

But you do. The motion wrt the CMBR does not require an aether in
its
complete description. You may choose to write one in, just as
Einstein
(and Mach in some sense) provided "extensions of mass/energy". But
at the
quantum level, the "CMBR anisotropy" is simply interactions between
photons
and charges.

The CMBR is an isotropic 'sea' of photons. Any motion wrt to it is
thus
revealed as an anistropic Doppler shift.

... and made moot by quantum mechanics anyway, ...

No it isn't, IMO...

As you choose.

... is not advancing the cause of mankind. Just my opinion of
course.

You're entitled to your opinion

You're also entitled to not be mocked or harassed because of
it...

I haven't felt so. I do feel a little like I stepped into a
hornets
nest, though... You and Freddi are keeping level tones. We'll
see
about Ole. I'll see if I can keep from "flaming" as Greywolf42
has
so often accused me of.

Welcome to the club , as you've seen, we get it all the time.

I hope you don't feel like I'm flaming, ...

Not at all. I do detect a tinge of sarcasm from time to time. That
is tolerable.

... because I'm not intending to. It is just interesting that a
continuum
is being "pressed into" quantum mechanics, where a continuum (aka
aether)
is not a solution.

Complety wrong illusion as already dismissed.

The sea of energetic 'quantum objesct' and that which constitute them
yields the solutions & basic nature we call quatum mechanics. It IS
ultimately, statistical in nature.

Hm, be simple and straight Paul. QM is statistical in nature.
Nature is completely indifferent to human geometry and statistics!

Neither is SR or GR a "solution".

They can't be.

Which is why we define 5D General Aether and Relativity,
GAR in compact and unfolded versions.

Ole

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 Paul Stowe wrote:
But my initial scan suggests that instability seems to lead to break up
into numerous smaller vortices conserving circulation in the pure
inviscid state.

Your initial scan suggests this? Surely you're aware that this was
Kelvin's conclusion over a century ago, and that this is what
compelled him to finally admit that his cherished idea of molecular
vortices was untenable.

Moreover, with a non-zero viscocity (even the slightest amount)
there is a low wavelength cutoff. It then would seem to me that
the vortices would evolve over time into smaller & smaller rings
until reaching this cut off then a stability would be established.

Excuse me, but that is not only obviously false, it is utterly
irrational. Viscosity (like friction) exerts drag, and converts
mechanical energy into heat. This can only dissipate any vortices
present in a fluid. The idea that, on some scale, viscosity will
promote the persistence of spinning regions in a fluid is logically
self-contradictory.

Since I am unfamiliar with the details I'll have to research the topic
much closer befow being able to comment in any detail on this matter.

You're already in possession of all the knowledge necessary to
understand why vortex rings are not and can not be stable. The only
thing you're lacking now is the intellectual honesty to admit this to
yourself, and the courage to let go of your childish fantasies and
face reality. Good luck.

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox skrev i en
meddelelse news:cNxWc.13182$L94.4186@fed1read07...
Dear Paul Stowe:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:56:12 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
N:
dlzc1
D:cox wrote:

Dear Paul Stowe:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 12:47:05 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
N:
dlzc1
D:cox wrote:

[Snip...]

Quantum mechanics doesn't require distance, only yields it
up
"statistically". No distance, no volume. No volume no need
for aether.

All QM is is "statistical"... Look at the new issue of
Scientific
American. Just because we can deal with something
"statistically"
does not mean there is no underlying processes. In fact,
that we
can deal "statistically" with it strongly suggests
otherwise. I
perfer SED's philosophical foundation.

Preferences notwithstanding, the statistical results of QM
don't
rely on distance. Your argment is invalid.

Show us an example... I don't understand where you're coming
from.

An example of QM that *does* rely on distance? I don't know of
one.

No, doesn't. Show us an equational example that has no reference
to
length. That means no speed, no momentum, no Planck's constant,
no
wave'length', ... etc!

First of all, note that momentum is simply energy with
direction... so
therefore should not be "edicted out".

Direction has no valid meaning without the concept of length.

Doesn't follow. r*theta has length meaning, theta alone does not.

Quantum mechanics:, let's see:

- Pauli exclusion,

Exclusion from what?

Quantum states.

Babble for idiots!

- spin conservation,

What's spin without length?

A unit vector.

My Goodness. His illusion we are idiots?

- Schroedinger solutions

-iEt2pi/h
psi(x,t) = fee(x)e

has no valid meaning without x (a length parameter).

Does, actually.

Well enough. If you invoke quantum mechanics, you give up
aether,
and a good deal of relativity as well. The "integration"
into
spacetime becomes illusion.

No that's very funny given that SR is founded upon illusion.
That of the observer-centric perspective...

As noted, SR, GR and LET *fail* at the quantum level. And QM
doesn't seem (yet) to yield up spacetime (on any particular
base,
aether or not).

All continuum based processes 'fail' at a small enough scale.
Didn't
you learn this in basic kinetic theory?

And so aether *fails* at a small enough scale. So that the
aether,
if
it exists, is also a statistical illusion.

Even IF you're trying to base you argument solely upon the
Continuum
domain I think it is invalid.

Detection of an aetheron will tell all, won't it? What are the
properties
of this force moderator, by the way?

What force moderator? If the aetheron is a simple particle there
is no
force moderator. The particles physically interact without any
non-contact
moderation. Agreed that this is an assumption, but the KISS
princple
applies.

Right, since aetherons are only required to "evoke" distance, and QM
doesn't require distance, KISS demands that there be no aetherons

Wow, all in one long sentence! The length of that sentence
alone
should have pushed something into orbit. I notice you and
your
kin are as far from interstellar drive as the rest of us.
So you
are wasting your energy justifying the unnecessary. How
nice.

Where & when did an 'interstellar drive' enter into this
thread???

The point being, energy wasted to "justifying" an aether that
must
remain undetectable to agree with experiment,

You (and others) have a very strange & uncommon notion of
'detectable'. The aether is detected, continuously.

You seem to have a very strange & uncommon definition of
"detectable".
Since your "detection" is a null result.

If, by 'detection' you solely mean so-called absolute motion that
isn't
even Null, the CMBR reveals it quite nicely, TYVM.

"TYVM"? "Thank You Bery Much"?

Pretty much ...

However, as you're also well aware, mediums be they gaseous,
fluidic,
solid, superfluidic, or supersolid have one common BASIC
characteristic.
That is, the native ability to propagate non-contact forces. No
other
physical process is known to have this.

Non-contact forces don't exist in quantum mechanics, or had you
forgotten
this?

No I haven't. I disagree with your interpretation here.

QM doesn't have "force at a distance". No distance, no medium.

All forces are moderated by particles. Aggregates (aka fields)
are
statistical illusion.

Well, those 'illusions' are what being debated, right

Not in QM its not. What is being debated is what path gets us from
these
"nuts and bolts" to the "Universal System". And will be argued for
some
time.

Lack of detection is not detection. Any more than "the size of
the
photon is experimentally indistinguishable from 0" is detection
of
size.

I do not 'artifically' limit my scope of the word 'detection'
solely
to ONE arcane thing!

But you do. The motion wrt the CMBR does not require an aether in
its
complete description. You may choose to write one in, just as
Einstein
(and Mach in some sense) provided "extensions of mass/energy".
But at
the
quantum level, the "CMBR anisotropy" is simply interactions
between
photons
and charges.

The CMBR is an isotropic 'sea' of photons. Any motion wrt to it is
thus
revealed as an anistropic Doppler shift.

Who says the CMBR is stationary? It might be convenient to imagine it
so... but two boats bobbing up and down simultaneously appear to be
*relatively* stationary. Doesn't mean they are.

... and made moot by quantum mechanics anyway, ...

No it isn't, IMO...

As you choose.

... is not advancing the cause of mankind. Just my opinion of
course.

You're entitled to your opinion

You're also entitled to not be mocked or harassed because of
it...

I haven't felt so. I do feel a little like I stepped into a
hornets
nest, though... You and Freddi are keeping level tones. We'll
see
about Ole. I'll see if I can keep from "flaming" as Greywolf42
has
so often accused me of.

Welcome to the club , as you've seen, we get it all the time.

I hope you don't feel like I'm flaming, ...

Not at all. I do detect a tinge of sarcasm from time to time.
That
is tolerable.

Whew! I respect the "job" of "conscientious objector". It does help
one
keep one's tools sharp.

Come to a grinding stone Mr. Smith with your illusions!

... because I'm not intending to. It is just interesting that a
continuum
is being "pressed into" quantum mechanics, where a continuum (aka
aether)
is not a solution.

The sea of energetic 'quantum objesct' and that which constitute
them
yields the solutions & basic nature we call quatum mechanics. It
IS
ultimately, statistical in nature.

No. The illusion is statistical in nature. Nothing about the
"foundation"
is so bound.

Neither is SR or GR a "solution".

They can't be.

*Sigh*.

It is spelled "Good day" Mr. Smith.

Ole D. Rughede

"Jim Clark" wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 Paul Stowe wrote:
| But my initial scan suggests that instability seems to lead to break up
| into numerous smaller vortices conserving circulation in the pure
| inviscid state.
|
| Your initial scan suggests this? Surely you're aware that this was
| Kelvin's conclusion over a century ago, and that this is what
| compelled him to finally admit that his cherished idea of molecular
| vortices was untenable.
|
| Moreover, with a non-zero viscocity (even the slightest amount)
| there is a low wavelength cutoff. It then would seem to me that
| the vortices would evolve over time into smaller & smaller rings
| until reaching this cut off then a stability would be established.
|
| Excuse me, but that is not only obviously false, it is utterly
| irrational. Viscosity (like friction) exerts drag, and converts
| mechanical energy into heat. This can only dissipate any vortices
| present in a fluid. The idea that, on some scale, viscosity will
| promote the persistence of spinning regions in a fluid is logically
| self-contradictory.
|
| Since I am unfamiliar with the details I'll have to research the topic
| much closer befow being able to comment in any detail on this matter.
|
| You're already in possession of all the knowledge necessary to
| understand why vortex rings are not and can not be stable. The only
| thing you're lacking now is the intellectual honesty to admit this to
| yourself, and the courage to let go of your childish fantasies and
| face reality. Good luck.

Exactly why the common view of vortices don't work. Ya got to get
*uncommon* in your thinking. Think stringy like vortices. Point-like
vacuum quantum entities (whether they are strings themselves is irrelevant)
that are massless or have a very tiny tiny mass are going to be like
strings. Crank them all up and you get the quantum vacuum. You have
stringy-like objects linked thru other loops of stringy-like objects and the
whole thing is like a cloud. Coupled oscillators. Ordered chaos.

FrediFizzx

FrediFizzx wrote:

Exactly why the common view of vortices don't work. Ya got to get
*uncommon* in your thinking. Think stringy like vortices. Point-like
vacuum quantum entities (whether they are strings themselves is irrelevant)
that are massless or have a very tiny tiny mass are going to be like
strings. Crank them all up and you get the quantum vacuum. You have
stringy-like objects linked thru other loops of stringy-like objects and the
whole thing is like a cloud. Coupled oscillators. Ordered chaos.

This is not what the 19-th century physicists had in mind. They
conceived aether to be an elastic medium with some mechanical
properties. Maxwell, for instance, was always looking for mechanical
concepts to underlie his theories. Faith in mechanical models was very
great in the 19-th century. In fact, the big change in physics going
into the 20-th century was getting away from the mechanical view.

The aether adumbrated by Aristotle, energetically adhered to by
Descarte, sought after by Maxwell on most 19-th century physicists is
dead and gone. No one thinks of aether that way any more. Why? Because
it cannot be made to work and predict correctly.

People are looking for a different substrate more consistent with
quantum theory. All well and good. But why call this subtrate aether? It
has nothing to do with what Aristotle, Descartes or Maxwell or Faraday
had in mind.

Bob Kolker

robert j. kolker wrote:
People are looking for a different substrate more consistent with
quantum theory. All well and good. But why call this subtrate aether? It
has nothing to do with what Aristotle, Descartes or Maxwell or Faraday
had in mind.

The earth has nothing to do with what ancient man believed it to be
but we still call it earth. If we changed the name of something
every time someone made a mistake about its nature, we would have
run out of names long ago.

The point is that there is something there - as opposed to absolute
nothing. People are looking at exactly the same substrate that has
always been there, the exact one that Aristotle realized was there.
That Aristotle was wrong about the nature of the aether doesn't
change the nature of the aether.
--
cheers, Cecil



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Cecil Moore" skrev i en meddelelse
...
robert j. kolker wrote:
People are looking for a different substrate more consistent with
quantum theory. All well and good. But why call this subtrate
aether? It
has nothing to do with what Aristotle, Descartes or Maxwell or
Faraday
had in mind.

The earth has nothing to do with what ancient man believed it to be
but we still call it earth. If we changed the name of something
every time someone made a mistake about its nature, we would have
run out of names long ago.

The point is that there is something there - as opposed to absolute
nothing. People are looking at exactly the same substrate that has
always been there, the exact one that Aristotle realized was there.
That Aristotle was wrong about the nature of the aether doesn't
change the nature of the aether.
--
cheers, Cecil

Could scarcely be said more precise.

Ole

Cecil Moore wrote:

The earth has nothing to do with what ancient man believed it to be
but we still call it earth. If we changed the name of something
every time someone made a mistake about its nature, we would have
run out of names long ago.

The earth was, is and always will be what we stand on.

Using old names for new things without the appropriate qualifying
statements is potentially misleading. Old names are sometimes used for
want of a better term. For example the Hebrew word for Tank (a weapon of
war) is the same as for the Egyptian war chariot --- Merkabah. In the
context in which this old biblical word is used there is little chance
that misunderstanding will occur. Not so for the term aether.

The classical aether had mechanical characterstics. It had elasticity
(to provide a recovering force against displacement) and it had
viscosity. It was very stiff yet very rare Space Jello. Maxwell even
thought it looked like invisible hex nuts with little ball bearings in
between.

Bob Kolker