"G=EMC^2 Glazier" skrev i en meddelelse
...
I think in stead of aether we should use the word "medium" for it fits
with the way QM treats it. Bert PS "fabric" is also nice.


No Herbert,

The Aether is the special one and only medium of all
fields and forces, the STE medium of pure radiant EM
energy in the whole of the universe, also inside any
material body as the medium of forces between the
discrete particles of atoms and molecules in enduring
energetic interaction with every single such particle.

And the physical properties of the aether are so very
much different from all material media, which on the
other hand are just - like any sort of ponderabel matter -
some other phase form of EM-energy so different from
the free wavy EM-energy of the aether.

Therefore the name Aether of historical prescriptive
rights should unconditionally continue to be the time-
honoured custom of use in physics, not the least because
Einstein's mad idea to criminalize the use of the word
Aether reflected a gross misunderstanding he recognized
himself, finding that his own theories of relativity were in
fact sub-theories of the Aether Theory he did not succeed
to figure out.

So we forget Eistein's faultiness, since it is nothing worth
speaking about, but we maintain the name Aether.

Ole D. Rughede

Ole D. Rughede wrote:

No Herbert,

The Aether is the special one and only medium of all
fields and forces, the STE medium of pure radiant EM
energy in the whole of the universe, also inside any
material body as the medium of forces between the
discrete particles of atoms and molecules in enduring
energetic interaction with every single such particle.

Have you detected any lately?

And why do non-aetheric theories predict so well?

Bob Kolker

"Robert J. Kolker" skrev i en meddelelse
news:JWpUc.1483$Fg5.849@attbi_s53...


Ole D. Rughede wrote:

The Aether is the special one and only medium of all
fields and forces, the STE medium of pure radiant EM
energy in the whole of the universe, also inside any
material body as the medium of forces between the
discrete particles of atoms and molecules in enduring
energetic interaction with every single such particle.

Have you detected any lately?

Now you are foolish, or very slow. Any what Bob?
You probably can understand that I will not answer
your same dull-witted questions again and again.

And why do non-aetheric theories predict so well?

Bob Kolker

For the same reason I will leave it to you to fall into
trance by astonishment over the progress in sciences.

Ole D. Rughede

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:58:33 GMT, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:



Ole D. Rughede wrote:

No Herbert,

The Aether is the special one and only medium of all
fields and forces, the STE medium of pure radiant EM
energy in the whole of the universe, also inside any
material body as the medium of forces between the
discrete particles of atoms and molecules in enduring
energetic interaction with every single such particle.

Have you detected any lately?

Yup, just now playing with the refrigerator magnets

And why do non-aetheric theories predict so well?

Because there aren't any, just like Einstein admonished.

You (and others) just like to 'pretend' there are. It's
called the Hobba-Kolker-Ostrich Effect

Paul Stowe

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:JWpUc.1483$Fg5.849@attbi_s53...
|
|
| Ole D. Rughede wrote:
|
| No Herbert,
|
| The Aether is the special one and only medium of all
| fields and forces, the STE medium of pure radiant EM
| energy in the whole of the universe, also inside any
| material body as the medium of forces between the
| discrete particles of atoms and molecules in enduring
| energetic interaction with every single such particle.
|
| Have you detected any lately?

Everytime I open my eyes.

| And why do non-aetheric theories predict so well?

I second what Paul said: "There aren't any". And I don't think you will
find many particle physicists that *don't* think the quantum vacuum is a
dielectric medium that screens charge. Vacuum charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c).

FrediFizzx

FrediFizzx wrote:


Everytime I open my eyes.


So you claim, but it is photons that tickle your retinas, not waves in
Super Mystery Space Goo. I wish aether did exist. I would package it and
make a small fortune.

Bob Kolker

Robert J. Kolker wrote:
I wish aether did exist. I would package it and
make a small fortune.

Some sort of aether exists. The characteristics
of the aether is just not what everyone was looking for
100 years ago. From: "The Five Ages of the Universe" by
Adams and Laughlin, "The uncertainty principle has important
consequences for the concept of a vacuum. From a quantum viewpoint,
the vacuum cannot really be empty. ... Quantum behavior thus leads
naturally to the concept of empty space being allowed to have an
energy density. Not only can the vacuum have an associated energy
density, but it can also attain different energy states."

All you have to do is learn how to tap into that "energy density".
--
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 wrote:

Robert J. Kolker wrote:

I wish aether did exist. I would package it and make a small fortune.


Some sort of aether exists. The characteristics
of the aether is just not what everyone was looking for
100 years ago.

Let me interpret this. What they were looking for 100 years ago does not
exist but what they are looking for now might exists.

Why use the same name for two different kinds of stuff. It only confuses
things.

Bob Kolker

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
in message news:wU2Vc.188782$eM2.117435@attbi_s51...

Cecil Moore wrote:

Robert J. Kolker wrote:

I wish aether did exist. I would package it and make a small fortune.


Some sort of aether exists. The characteristics
of the aether is just not what everyone was looking for
100 years ago.

Let me interpret this. What they were looking for 100 years ago does not
exist but what they are looking for now might exists.

Why use the same name for two different kinds of stuff. It only confuses
things.


The day was very much the same for Aristarchus,
and for Aristotle. Only with our retrospective
knowledge do we perceive that their theoretical
understanding of "day" was not the same.




Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:wU2Vc.188782$eM2.117435@attbi_s51...
|
|
| Cecil Moore wrote:
|
| Robert J. Kolker wrote:
|
| I wish aether did exist. I would package it and make a small fortune.
|
|
| Some sort of aether exists. The characteristics
| of the aether is just not what everyone was looking for
| 100 years ago.
|
| Let me interpret this. What they were looking for 100 years ago does not
| exist but what they are looking for now might exists.
|
| Why use the same name for two different kinds of stuff. It only confuses
| things.

As far as I am concerned, the proper name for the "vacuum" medium is called
the "quantum vacuum" now-a-days. Vacuum charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c). That
hbar in there means a lot. The quantum vacuum is *not* devoid of action.

FrediFizzx