Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Particles don't need no steenking aether.

Please prove that particles can exist between bubble
universes where there is "no steenking 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! =-----

Robert J. Kolker wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Heh, heh. Isn't the demand that a negative be proven
prima facie evidence of the loss of an argument?

No. It is a requirement to show the TRUTH of your hypothesis.

Suggest you take a course in classical logic. Proving a
non-exclusive negative is impossible. That you require
such of me is sophomoric.
--
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! =-----

Paul Stowe wrote:
See Cecil, as is evidenced by these postings, Bob is as much of a closed-minded
as any other so-called crackpot. He will steadfastly deny anything that does
not fit into his worldview.

Reminds me of a Church of Christ radio show in Nashville. Two C of C
ministers asserted that if the Bible doesn't give one explicit permission
to perform a specific act, then that specific act should not be performed.
A listener called in and asked, "Where in the Bible does it give you guys
explicit permission to broadcast over AM radio?" :-)
--
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! =-----

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 Paul Stowe wrote:
Now go LOOK UP Kelvin's Circulation Theorem & Helmholtz's Theorems
as suggested! The fact is, inviscid (Perfect) fluids will maintain vorticity
indefinitely.

After you've learned about the conservation of vorticity in perfect
inviscid fluids, look up Kelvin-Helmholt instability. This is what
ultimately convinced Kelvin, after years of fruitless effort, that
vortices weren't a workable mechanism for electromagnetic
phenomena after all, even for a perfect inviscid fluid.

Dear Ole D. Rughede:

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
. ..

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox skrev i en
meddelelse news:Na3Wc.3574$L94.56@fed1read07...
Dear Ole D. Rughede:

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
. ..

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox skrev
i en
meddelelse news:qmVVc.1594$L94.1590@fed1read07...
...
Take your own mind from the 19th century, Freddi!
You accept quantum theory, so where is the need for
a pervasive medium, when quantum mechanically,
there is no volume to be filled?

David, what do you mean by "no volume to be filled"?
Is space disappearing? Isn't the quantum vacuum filled
with quanta like the ZPE-vacuum was filled with positive
and negative energies? Where in the universe will you
find a true empty vaccum, meaning space without any
mass or energy? The is space-time-energy continuum
is the aether.

The spacetime continuum is a statistical illusion. Quantum mechanics
doesn't require distance, only yields it up "statistically". No
distance,
no volume. No volume no need for aether.

Go with peace in your illusions!

And you in yours.

If you have serious arguments against Aether Theory,
please forward them, but do yourself the favour to be
acquainted with the present state of the theory which
has been discussed in this thread.

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.

You were asked for serious arguments!

A serious argument was provided.

Aether Theory does not invoke QM.
On the contrary QM needs aether theory
to comply with all other theories of physics.

Not. Only in your illusion is the last sentence true.

If QM and QFT had had all the answers, we would have
no necessity for an Aether Theory to fuse EM, WM, QM,
SR, GR, STE, STM into 5D Kaluza-Klein with a precise
definition of aether energy density and aether pressure to
a "cosmological constant" Lambda in the General Theory
of Aether and Relativity, GAR, which indicates the strange
properties of matter and fields in low energy physics at
temperatures below the GAR 2.692064 Kelvin, and a
variablity of G and c as functions of higher aether densities
at temperatures T 2.692064 Kelvin until the extremes
of galaxy kernel and black hole temperatures.

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.

You mean in one short paragraph?

No, one sentence. Only one intermediate period, and that was a decimal
place marker.

Don't you distinguish between periods
between periods and sentences between
commas?

Is that English? The end-of-sentence markers are ".", "!", "?", and
occasionally ";" for runons.

But you are probably right in it is waste
of writing space, time and energy to tell
you anything you know better.

Short story. You are acting foolishly.

David A. Smith

Dear FrediFizzx:

"FrediFizzx" wrote in message
...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:P23Wc.20720$yh.1728@fed1read05...
| Dear FrediFizzx:
|
| "FrediFizzx" wrote in message
| ...
....
| | Take your own mind from the 19th century, Freddi! You accept
quantum
| | theory, so where is the need for a pervasive medium, when quantum
| | mechanically, there is no volume to be filled?
|
| Mind explaining this "no volume to be filled"? What does that mean?
| What
| volume are you talking about? How do you propose that space-time has
a
| certain geometry without something defining it?
|
| Quantum mechanics does not require distance, only sequence. Without
| distance, there is no volume. Without volume there is no place, or
need,
| for aether. It is a "solution" to a statistical illusion.

This looks like gibberish. What the heck is the uncertainty principle
all
about then?

Measurement error, limiting the system called "measurement device" imbedded
in the system "Universe" from determining with infinite precision both
momentum and position, or both energy and time.

Position sounds like it is dealing with length to me. Atoms
occupy a volume in space. So do quarks, protons, electrons, etc. The
structure of elementary fermions comes from outside of them due to the
quantum vacuum.

There is no "position" in QM, only sequence. A thing is either
interacting, or it is not.

| The Universe is mechanical
| even if it is quantum mechanical.
|
| So sure are you?

No doubt in my mind whatsoever. Charge does not happen by magic. The
only
solution I see is a mechanical one with a quantum mechanical medium. But
I
am listening. Talk me out of it if you can.

Time is acausal. It underlies all of reality. Your mechanism is then
based on "random chance". Mechanism then seems to deal with the
"continuity of illusion". So mechanism is simply a logical construct used
to tie sucessive events together.

Ball is in your court.

David A. Smith

Dear Paul Stowe:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 09:38:47 -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 08:43:41 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1
D:cox wrote:

Dear Ole D. Rughede:

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
. ..

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox

[Snip...]

David, what do you mean by "no volume to be filled"?
Is space disappearing? Isn't the quantum vacuum filled
with quanta like the ZPE-vacuum was filled with positive
and negative energies? Where in the universe will you
find a true empty vaccum, meaning space without any
mass or energy? The is space-time-energy continuum
is the aether.

The spacetime continuum is a statistical illusion.

Let's coin this "The Matrix Argument"...

No let's don't. The Matrix was a religious/philosophical allegory.
I think we are discussing science. Right?

The Matrix was an allegory all right, a comment about what IS
reality? and how can we tell it we we 'see' it. Your comment,

"The spacetime continuum is a statistical illusion."

falls squarely into that category. If you think it is science then
be specific enough for others to follow along. That means you must
provide at least enough detail to make the point.

Detail was clipped out below. When making presentations, it is common to
"tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what
you told them". You started with an inappropriate remark to the
introductory statement.

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.

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.

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

... 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.

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Ole D. Rughede:

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
. ..

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox skrev i en
meddelelse news:qmVVc.1594$L94.1590@fed1read07...

...

Take your own mind from the 19th century, Freddi!
You accept quantum theory, so where is the need for
a pervasive medium, when quantum mechanically,
there is no volume to be filled?

David, what do you mean by "no volume to be filled"?
Is space disappearing? Isn't the quantum vacuum filled
with quanta like the ZPE-vacuum was filled with positive
and negative energies? Where in the universe will you
find a true empty vaccum, meaning space without any
mass or energy? The is space-time-energy continuum
is the aether.


The spacetime continuum is a statistical illusion. Quantum mechanics
doesn't require distance, only yields it up "statistically". No distance,
no volume. No volume no need for aether.

Dale Trynor wrote:
You must not have seen my postings looking at experimental approaches to
showing how time can be related to volume and how this in turn is very
suggestive of a quantum mechanical association.
If you dont remember, it was showing how the sort of time dilation one
gets around black holes and other massive objects to a lesser extent
must contract matter and all references on length in such a way that
leads to the measure of more space.

Showing the how and why that something like the Casimir plates that
actually measure propertys of the vacuum, cannot be used as a preferred
references frame is critical to further support the idea that quantum
vacuum is directly connection with the volume of space.

Dale

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:Xc2Wc.299953$%_6.271384@attbi_s01...
Ole D. Rughede wrote:

No one is obliged to respond to your desperate postings.
And perhaps you would get better if no one did? A shame
is it anyway for you to exhibit that kind of silly nonsense.
You are not the one to falsify the Theory of Aether.

Then don't respond. Here is the bottom line. Aether free mainline
theories predict correctly and have not yet been falsified by
experiment. That is the bottom line. There is only ONE thing that
matters in physics --- correct quantitative predictions.

Physics is empirical from top to bottom.

Physics is empircal only in the sense that
idiotic Astronomers are empirical.

But since those Astrononical intellectual dwarfs,
in search of DARK pi, will be replaced by computers,
along with their astrophysics guiding stars to
Cambridge, Entropy, and Morons LTD.

It's just a matter of time, until all chemists
along with their idiot Evolutionary Advisers are replaced
by Spandex Machines.







Bob Kolker

Robert J. Kolker wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Robert J. Kolker wrote:

... and show that no other hypothesis can account for the
transmission of light.



Heh, heh. Isn't the demand that a negative be proven
prima facie evidence of the loss of an argument?


No. It is a requirement to show the TRUTH of your hypothesis. We do not
require hypotheses to be true. We require only that the produce true
predictions.

Non-aether theories predict correctly. This shows either (1) there is no
aether or (2) the undetectable aether is irrelevent to making correct
predictions. Take your choice.

Bob Kolker

Dale Trynor wrote:
For starters who ever said the quantum vacuum was undetectable and
weather you want to call it aether or not is another, probably more
insignificant subject.
The problem is do they want to make any new progress, yes or no. By
analogy how much do you think you can really learn about bubbles without
eventually having to study the ocean. You dont seriously mean to say
that the ocean will always be insignificant because the primitive
science at the time makes correct predictions without it. Suppose thats
fine if no further progress is wanted or needed. Teachers after all will
be paid the same no mater what, so what value has actual truth for them
and avoids the cost of new textbooks etc. Is this preferred ?.
Dale