Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits

David Thomson:
"MorituriMax" wrote in message
news
Ole D. Rughede wrote:
You have been told what the aether is and where to find it.

How the hell do you "find" it if it is not detectable?

You quantify empty Aether by observing the stuff that passed through it.

So, I take it that a particle with an initial trajectory along the
axis of a piece of beam pipe under vacuum, should scatter and hit the
edge of the beam pipe? Assuming a vacuum of 10^-6 torr and an electron
of energy E, what contribution to the scattering would be represented
by the ether? At 10^-6 torr, the mean free path is extremely long, so
for the most part, you shouldn't have to worry about scattering from
the residual gas.

You quantify empty Aether by the force it exerts on physical objects
(Coulomb's constant, Newton gravitational constant).

OK, If I place a charge out in space somewhere, what force will
the ether exert on it and which direction will it accelerate?

You quantify empty Aether by observing the empty "fields" it makes in the
presence of a magnet.

What's an ``empty field'' (other than kook research)?


You quantify empty Aether by observing the macro shapes that occur
from the subatomic matter that occupies it.

Such as?

You quantify empty Aether by the curvature of light as light passes by large
masses (like stars).
Aether is pulled into mass due to the binding of subatomic particles.
If the mass is spherical, the bending of spacetime will also be spherical.

Starting with these so-called sub-atomic particles that bind, how
about performing a calculation that shows how much bending occurs?

The Morley - Miller experiment was conducted between mountain tops, because
they thought maybe the Aether was connected to the basement of the
Michelson - Morley experiment. But as it turns out, the Aether is also
connected to the atmosphere between the two mountains. Both experiments are
proof that Aether is composed of quantum units of spacetime, each
independent from the other. Each quantum particle (electron and proton)
needs one Aether unit. (Neutrons need two, being a composite of an electron
and proton.)

I'm sure you won't believe this, but the electron spin is 1/2, the
proton spin is 1/2, the neutron spin is 1/2 and 1/2 + 1/2 can only
add to 0 or 1.

As protons, neutrons, and electron bind with each other, they
fold Aether in upon itself. This causes the so-called gravitational lensing
effect around massive objects.

It was assumed by the scientists of the late 1800s that the Aether would be
like a loose wind, blowing through matter. But stable physical matter
cannot exist apart from the Aether and thus the two act upon each other.

A calculation please.

Neutrinos can exist apart from the Aether, that is why we can't detect their
mass.

La-de-da... search google for super kamiokande.

Neutrinos are passing in between Aether units and unless they strike
a neutron, don't interact with physical matter.

Then how is it that experiments have measured electron-neutrino
scattering? Just a fluke?

When neutrinos strike a
neutron, all they do is knock the anti-neutrino loose and cause the electron
to fly loose due to it relatively huge magnetic moment. Thus the mass of
the neutrino is really 1.531 times greater than the electron.

Gee, that's interesting, since it doesn't show up as the beta endpoint
energy on a kurie plot. I guess neutrinos accomplish this by violating
conservation of energy and momentum.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:29:02 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:


"mountain man" wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote:
in message ...

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

...[snip]...

And what should aether physics be about?

Beats me. Before deciding that it might be a good idea to actually
detect it.


Claims exist that is the aether has been in fact detected
for some time, and that there is evidence of systematic
errors in all gas-mode michaelson interferometers since
the first one was made.

You are probably already aware of Cahill's
comprehensive work at:
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics

There are other independent experiments published:
See the Yuri Galaev's papers at Section (1) of:
www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm

There is the work of Maurice Allais, Nobel Prize (Economics)
See above page for link to his site.

As the site claims it is an outgrowth of the work of Dayton Miller. It is
now well recognized that Millers experiments did show results that could be
interpreted as evidence of an aether. However it is also well recognized
other explanations than the existence of an aether can account for the
results.

Has Dayton Miller's experiment been repeated using the same apparatus
with perhaps a modern optical imaging recorder? If not you have NO
valid argument. Data is data interpretation of same is solely a
human endeavor. There is a saying, figures never lie, but liars figure...


... Since many other experiments gave an unequivocal null results ...

They do? Show me the data... Not interpretations. I think you'll
find that the data in almost all was NOT pure null!

... and only one experiment

only one? What about Silvertooth, Torr & Kolen, Roland DeWitte, ... etc?

gave a result that may indicate the existence of an aether, and may not as
well, logic forces the conclusion that it has not been found.

Remind me NOT to ask you for logical analyses of anything of importance.

This is examined here http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/12/2.

Yeah an you won't follow that reference's advice.

However the original poster stated in support of the existence of the aether:
'The existense is confirmed by measuring the temperature of the aether,
T(CMBR), meaning the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation,
which is about 2.7 °K. It therefore cannot be maintained that the aether
never has been detected or experimentally proved'. Of course the CBMR consists
of EM radiation and EM radiation is what the aether is purported to carry as
waves - it is obviously absurd to propose the waves of a medium is the
medium.

Wave in a medium are the result of the physical characteristics of the
medium. Do you agree or disagree? For example, use of passive sonar.

But I have noticed Mr Ole D. Rughede is quite fond of belligerently stating

Oh, if only he had the monopoly on 'belligerently stating'... PKB ...
And, I am in this regard, not immune from this practice. In fact,
the general behavior here encourages this.

... outlandish incoherent rubbish as if it was truth beyond question
then gets quite upset when posters respond he should do something about his
obviously deficient reasoning ability.

Again, no one is immune and you've done your own share.

Paul Stowe

(luke) wrote in message . com...
"Laurent" wrote in message ...
Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits



Thanks for your post Laurent.. I hope you have learned something from
the valid criticisms offered here so far.. most of which seem to
concern the philosophy..

I disagree with your first statement.. it implies that the "Universe"
(a good word to avoid in my opinion) is separate from the "aether"..
that matter sits in the aether, rather than being a disturbance of the
aether itself, which is closer to the truth.

Yes, like Descartes vortexes.


First of all, before we continue, we must start distinguishing empty
space from material space. Empty space is the seat to all fields,
synonymous to Einstein's aether, and it is primary. Material space,
or the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) and
electromagnetic radiation (EMR), are products. From now on I may
talk about aether and empty space as one and the same thing, in my
view these are synonymous.


The same error again. You must stop associating aether with "empty
space". Unless you mean that neither of those things exist..


Existence starts with the field, and before that there is the
aether.
Aether is before air.


? A field is a statistical moment of an underlying distribution
function.. e.g. if you have a fluid you have a velocity field, a
density field, a pressure tensor, etc.. There is no "before" or
"after" involved..


Matter, energy, material space and time are not. The aether
is changeless and eternal because it is not bounded by the laws of
spacetime, which is what we humans call the laws of physics.

Changeless and eternal? No way. Consider some volume of aether..
move a magnet, charge, or mass nearby. You have changed that aether.

There is no action at a distance because
there is no distance to cover within the aether. The aether is one
and everywhere, it has no moving parts, motion is not necessary,
that's why information can be transferred instantaneously.

Motion is entirely necessary. As is change.

It is an
error to think in terms of spatial extensions when trying to
understand what's going on at the aether scale. The aether is
everywhere and nowhere in specific, it's all pervading, it is inside
and between particles, it is a plenum, a matrix, the origin.

Yes, inside and between particles. But why discount spatial
extension? You need to give some freedom to your "aethrons" if you
hope to describe reality.. motion and position are a good place to
start.


Some claim that space has no physical properties,

Eh? How about g_mu_nu , F_mu_nu , or capital Psi ? Especially today
with a common knowledge of some of GR and QM, nobody claims that.

Smoothout
spacetime and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
microwave radiation (CMBR), without which there would be no material
space.

I'll have to check your references because I don't understand your
argument here at all. Is there no material space inside a shielded
box?


Boyer described the ZPR as fundamental to material space, and
thermal radiation as a product generated by the motion of ZPR
particles which in turn are buffeted back into motion by this
thermal radiation which they themselves had produced, providing the
basis for a perpetual motion system and solving the riddle of
infinite energies coming from space. [See Puthoff, Haisch and
Rueda's papers]

Thanks for the references, I am reading with interest:
[Puthoff, Haisch, Rueda, Phys. Let. A, 49, 678, 1994]



Space particles (dark matter) are carried by matter-selective,
inwardly flowing photons, in an electrical current. Just like
electrons are moved by electromotive force.
[...]


Now you are not making any sense at all.


How could a non-material aether represent a preferred frame if it
lacks any landmarks or coordinates?


Coordinates can be applied, and landmarks noted. All it takes is one
person's preference to be "preferred".


Can we take a direct measurement of something which is not matter?


Yes. (e.g. magnetometer, CCD -- unless you call these measurements
'indirect'...)

The only thing proven by the MMX was that they didn't understand the
aether's nature.


Wrong. Read their paper.

You want to measure drag caused by the aether? Just measure a moving
object's momentum... or measure the force needed to accelerate that
same object... that's it, that's aether caused drag.

Nice, I like that. Force := aether drag.


When you have a magnet with its surrounding field, we say that that
field is made of particles going from one end of the magnet to the
other, that's a field,

I've never heard that before..

Cheers - luke

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:29:02 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:


"mountain man" wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote:
in message ...

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

...[snip]...

And what should aether physics be about?

Beats me. Before deciding that it might be a good idea to actually
detect it.


Claims exist that is the aether has been in fact detected
for some time, and that there is evidence of systematic
errors in all gas-mode michaelson interferometers since
the first one was made.

You are probably already aware of Cahill's
comprehensive work at:
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics

There are other independent experiments published:
See the Yuri Galaev's papers at Section (1) of:
www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm

There is the work of Maurice Allais, Nobel Prize (Economics)
See above page for link to his site.

As the site claims it is an outgrowth of the work of Dayton Miller. It
is
now well recognized that Millers experiments did show results that could
be
interpreted as evidence of an aether. However it is also well
recognized
other explanations than the existence of an aether can account for the
results.

Has Dayton Miller's experiment been repeated using the same apparatus
with perhaps a modern optical imaging recorder? If not you have NO
valid argument. Data is data interpretation of same is solely a
human endeavor. There is a saying, figures never lie, but liars
figure...

We have no reason to a-priori suppose that further experiments may detect an
aether and conversely that in may not - but that is a far cry from saying an
aether has been detected. For that to be claimed Millers experiments would
have had to give an unequivocal positive result. It did not do that - it
gave a result that could be interpreted as evidence of an aether but could
be explained by other means. Until experiments have been conducted that
definitively show an aether then logic allows me, an anyone else with a
brain, to say we have no definite evidence of the existence of an aether.
And do not retort withy what would count as evidence - obviously the same
type as evidence we have for the existence of atoms ie an experiment whose
only reasonable interpretation is an aether just like the only reasonable
interpretation of Brownian motions was the existence of atoms. Millers
experiments were not conclusive - simple as that.

Bill



... Since many other experiments gave an unequivocal null results ...

They do? Show me the data... Not interpretations. I think you'll
find that the data in almost all was NOT pure null!

... and only one experiment

only one? What about Silvertooth, Torr & Kolen, Roland DeWitte, ... etc?

gave a result that may indicate the existence of an aether, and may not
as
well, logic forces the conclusion that it has not been found.

Remind me NOT to ask you for logical analyses of anything of importance.

This is examined here http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/12/2.

Yeah an you won't follow that reference's advice.

However the original poster stated in support of the existence of the
aether:
'The existense is confirmed by measuring the temperature of the aether,
T(CMBR), meaning the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation,
which is about 2.7 °K. It therefore cannot be maintained that the
aether
never has been detected or experimentally proved'. Of course the CBMR
consists
of EM radiation and EM radiation is what the aether is purported to
carry as
waves - it is obviously absurd to propose the waves of a medium is the
medium.

Wave in a medium are the result of the physical characteristics of the
medium. Do you agree or disagree? For example, use of passive sonar.

But I have noticed Mr Ole D. Rughede is quite fond of belligerently
stating

Oh, if only he had the monopoly on 'belligerently stating'... PKB ...
And, I am in this regard, not immune from this practice. In fact,
the general behavior here encourages this.

... outlandish incoherent rubbish as if it was truth beyond question
then gets quite upset when posters respond he should do something about
his
obviously deficient reasoning ability.

Again, no one is immune and you've done your own share.

Paul Stowe

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:29:02 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:


"mountain man" wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote:
in message ...

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

...[snip]...

And what should aether physics be about?

Beats me. Before deciding that it might be a good idea to actually
detect it.


Claims exist that is the aether has been in fact detected
for some time, and that there is evidence of systematic
errors in all gas-mode michaelson interferometers since
the first one was made.

You are probably already aware of Cahill's
comprehensive work at:
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics

There are other independent experiments published:
See the Yuri Galaev's papers at Section (1) of:
www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm

There is the work of Maurice Allais, Nobel Prize (Economics)
See above page for link to his site.

As the site claims it is an outgrowth of the work of Dayton Miller. It
is
now well recognized that Millers experiments did show results that could
be
interpreted as evidence of an aether. However it is also well
recognized
other explanations than the existence of an aether can account for the
results.

Has Dayton Miller's experiment been repeated using the same apparatus
with perhaps a modern optical imaging recorder? If not you have NO
valid argument. Data is data interpretation of same is solely a
human endeavor. There is a saying, figures never lie, but liars
figure...


Part of Allais site is an outgrowth of Allais research into the work of
Miller. Part of Allais site is about Allais own work in his own right.
This work specifically references the properties and nature of the
aether as the author (Maurice Allias) has managed to ascertain in
his 91 years of life. Look more carefully.

In regard to Miller, as Paul Stowe comments, his work has never
ever been replicated, only denigrated. There will be a reckoning
at some future stage, that will not contain pre-existent bias. Miller's
results have been shown to be consistent with other results, by a
growing number of independent researchers.

In regard to Allais, he used the opportunity of his Nobel Prize
acceptance speech for Economics in 1980 to remind the physics
community that his experiments with a paraconical pendulum
during the course 0f a solar eclipse are repeatable (better effect
at lower latitude) and are NOT EXPLAINED by current physics.

These very experiments, organised en-masse for the 1999 Solar
eclipse, were performed under some corroborative affair with
NASA. However, coordination of the results and their subsequent
publication failed when the head ****ing honcho one David Noever
previously a NASA contractor, left NASA and took the data with
him, in the year 2000.


Looks like they [the experiments]'ll have to be done again.

It seems as if real-life physicists remain as unaccountable.

There are some people here who believe that they are
unaccountable, but their time is rushing to meet them.


....[snip]...






Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm

"David Thomson" news3 @ spam.me.not volantis.org wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
What I mean is
actual evidence that it was philosophy that was being done and not
science.

I can give you one good example of science as philosophy---

E=mc^2

It is stated that energy is equivalent or equal to mass. This is all
philosophical nonsense. Anybody should know that mass is only a dimension
and that energy is just a unit.

Would you be so kind as to tell up what a dimension is? Hint - look up a
book on linear algebra or geometry.

Neither mass nor energy are real "things"
in the sense of some discrete process occurring.

They can be measured so they are as real as anything in physics.


What really happens is electrons, protons, neutrons, and photons interact
with each other. E=mc^2 says nothing about the actual processes occuring
and is merely a philosophical statement (I call it poetic license). The
fact is mass is always mass, whether it is the mass dimension of matter
(angular momentum) or the mass dimension of energy.

I suggest you have no idea what energy actually is. Acquaint yourself with
http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~gleeson/ht...on1_3_6_9.html. What the above
equation shows is that in SR mass is a conserved quantity associated with
the symmetries of energy.


If mass were truly converted to energy, then there would be no mass
dimension in energy as it would have been converted.

I wish these philosophy type dudes would understand that stringing
meaningless gibberish together may be of value in philosphy but science
demands some exactitude.


Electrons can be converted to photons, that is true (photoelectric
effect).


The photoelectric effect is about photons knocking out electrons not
electrons being converted to photons. Learn some basic physics - here is a
kiddy link
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000...oelectric.html

But that is not the same thing as saying mass is converted to energy.

The equation does not say mass is converted into nervy - it says mass is a
form of energy.

Electrons have more dimensions than merely mass (charge, length, and
time.)
You would have to show what happens to the other dimensions in order to
show
a conversion of mass to energy. But it won't ever happen because mass is
just a dimension.

As I said above it might be a good idea to acquaint yourself with what a
dimension is - see
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...fine:dimension.


We don't currently have that. Since Samuel Alexander [Space,
Time and Deity (1920)] was completely misunderstood by a whole century
of great minds the last best chance was (almost) missed.

And the evidence the misunderstanding this great book your referring to
had
this profound impact is?

I just bought the book online so I can find out. Sounds like a good
title.

Bill

"mountain man" wrote in message
...
"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:29:02 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:


"mountain man" wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote:
in message ...

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

...[snip]...

And what should aether physics be about?

Beats me. Before deciding that it might be a good idea to actually
detect it.


Claims exist that is the aether has been in fact detected
for some time, and that there is evidence of systematic
errors in all gas-mode michaelson interferometers since
the first one was made.

You are probably already aware of Cahill's
comprehensive work at:
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics

There are other independent experiments published:
See the Yuri Galaev's papers at Section (1) of:
www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm

There is the work of Maurice Allais, Nobel Prize (Economics)
See above page for link to his site.

As the site claims it is an outgrowth of the work of Dayton Miller.
It
is
now well recognized that Millers experiments did show results that
could
be
interpreted as evidence of an aether. However it is also well
recognized
other explanations than the existence of an aether can account for the
results.

Has Dayton Miller's experiment been repeated using the same apparatus
with perhaps a modern optical imaging recorder? If not you have NO
valid argument. Data is data interpretation of same is solely a
human endeavor. There is a saying, figures never lie, but liars
figure...


Part of Allais site is an outgrowth of Allais research into the work of
Miller. Part of Allais site is about Allais own work in his own right.
This work specifically references the properties and nature of the
aether as the author (Maurice Allias) has managed to ascertain in
his 91 years of life. Look more carefully.

In regard to Miller, as Paul Stowe comments, his work has never
ever been replicated, only denigrated. There will be a reckoning
at some future stage, that will not contain pre-existent bias. Miller's
results have been shown to be consistent with other results, by a
growing number of independent researchers.

General comments alluding to a 'growing number of intendment reasrchers';
or some such rubbish will not change facts - we have no evidence whose only
reasonable interpretation is it must exist. Until such is demonstrated then
people can legitimately believe it does not exists. Simple as that.

Bill


In regard to Allais, he used the opportunity of his Nobel Prize
acceptance speech for Economics in 1980 to remind the physics
community that his experiments with a paraconical pendulum
during the course 0f a solar eclipse are repeatable (better effect
at lower latitude) and are NOT EXPLAINED by current physics.

These very experiments, organised en-masse for the 1999 Solar
eclipse, were performed under some corroborative affair with
NASA. However, coordination of the results and their subsequent
publication failed when the head ****ing honcho one David Noever
previously a NASA contractor, left NASA and took the data with
him, in the year 2000.


Looks like they [the experiments]'ll have to be done again.

It seems as if real-life physicists remain as unaccountable.

There are some people here who believe that they are
unaccountable, but their time is rushing to meet them.


...[snip]...






Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"David Thomson" news3 @ spam.me.not volantis.org wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
What I mean is
actual evidence that it was philosophy that was being done and not
science.

I can give you one good example of science as philosophy---

E=mc^2

It is stated that energy is equivalent or equal to mass. This is all
philosophical nonsense. Anybody should know that mass is only a
dimension
and that energy is just a unit.

Would you be so kind as to tell up what a dimension is? Hint - look up a
book on linear algebra or geometry.


See Cahill - process physics. The algebra and geometry
can be generated out of random noise.

And for the nature of dimension, I'd suggest you read Mandelbrot
whom the bulk of this generation of phycisists have sadly reacted
to ignore.

The next generation of physcists will correct their bungling,
because they will perceive the current status-quo as nothing
more than the philosophy of idealistic realism, pumped
up by the ego of western technology, and much yak-yak.


Nature is not a terrestrial thing but a cosmic thing, and until
we are capable of seeing things with, or by, a cosmic sense, we
will be bound by our heritage of the terrestrial perspective.






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

In sci.physics mountain man wrote:

snip

Nature is not a terrestrial thing but a cosmic thing, and until
we are capable of seeing things with, or by, a cosmic sense, we
will be bound by our heritage of the terrestrial perspective.

Scully, the answers are out there...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

"Bill Hobba" skrev i en meddelelse
news

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

"Bill Hobba" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"mountain man" wrote in message
...
"Bill Hobba" wrote:
in message ...

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

...[snip]...

And what should aether physics be about?

Beats me. Before deciding that it might be a good idea to
actually
detect
it.


Claims exist that is the aether has been in fact detected
for some time, and that there is evidence of systematic
errors in all gas-mode michaelson interferometers since
the first one was made.

You are probably already aware of Cahill's
comprehensive work at:
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics

There are other independent experiments published:
See the Yuri Galaev's papers at Section (1) of:
www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm

There is the work of Maurice Allais, Nobel Prize (Economics)
See above page for link to his site.

As the site claims it is an outgrowth of the work of Dayton Miller.
It
is
now well recognized that Millers experiments did show results that
could
be
interpreted as evidence of an aether. However it is also well
recognized
other explanations than the existence of an aether can account for the
results. Since many other experiments gave an unequivocal null result
and
only one experiment gave a result that may indicate the existence of
an
aether, and may not as well, logic forces the conclusion that it has
not

been found. This is examined here
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/12/2. However the
original poster stated in support of the existence of the aether:
'The existense is confirmed by measuring the temperature
of the aether, T(CMBR), meaning the temperature of the
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is about
2.7 K. It therefore cannot be maintained that the aether
never has been detected or experimentally proved'.

Of course the CBMR consists of EM radiation and EM
radiation is what the aether is purported to carry as
waves - it is obviously absurd to propose the waves of a
medium is the medium.

You make progress Bill, that's fine!
Do a little more homework on the subject.
Massive particles are created from aether,
not from waves in nothing.

An aether that has never been detected? And photons have mass? Reference
for both please. Or is it simply your delusional rantings making another
appearance?


Has it escaped your attention that, when I have shown:

UL/hc = Gc/(kappa*L^2) = K dimensionless constant,

giving U = hf*(lambda/L)*K = Ghc^2/(kappa*V) erg,

I proved that the aether energy U is the bulk of photons
of all possible frequencies f and wavelenths lambda filling
all of space to make the aether the space-time-energy
continuum and wavy medium of all fields and forces, why
'Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits' is
a false statement?

This bulk of photons has been demonstrated to be the
black body radiation in a Maxwell distribution over all
possible wavelengths, shown in measurements of the
cosmic microwave background radiation at T(CMBR).
It therefore contains the whole spectrum of radiation
from extreme uhf-waves to waves that are longer than
the radius of the universe we can observe.

Should it be unknown to you (of all in these news groups)
that any amount of energy delta E corresponds to a mass
delta m, so that delta m = delta E / c^2, supposing that
the theorems of the conservation of momentum and energy
hold for all physical processes?

Has it ever occured to you that you only blame yourself with
your postulates of non-existing concepts which have never
been "detected", and with your childish cry for "references",
especially when confronted with bare scientific facts in
simple physics formulas supported by numerical results of
utmost precision and minimal uncertainty?

You have completely misunderstood how science works.
Negative results of experiments in attempts to prove certain
presumed properties of the aether have not proven that the
aether does not exist. At best it is proved that the aether
has not the assumed or expected properties.

When I assert that the aether exists (as concept through
millenia of philosophy and scientific thought), furthermore
give clear and sound reasons for it, you will kindly have to
demonstrate and give incontestable proof for your claim
that the aether does not exist and that my findings are false
or faulty. That is your real problem worsen by your bad
scientific attitudes and general lack of manners!

But I have noticed Mr Ole D. Rughede is quite fond of
belligerently stating outlandish incoherent rubbish as if it
was truth beyond question then gets quite upset when
posters respond he should do something about his
obviously deficient reasoning ability.

Bill

Oh, Billy! - Boy, you pour little thing!
I suggest you write a fine letter to Mr. president,
and tell him that you are terrorized by some foreign
outlandish Ole man, and you would like to have
that Ole shot dead at once, immediately, instantly,
and straight away, for you can't live in peace with
such terror, and won't have more of it.

Then Mr. president will truly do what you ask him
and send you a big nice red lollipop to comfort you.

Him Ole man is only writing words as if they were
true to delude you believing they are the true truth.
O.K.? - Then give us a hug and a smile! ;-)

Would you mind telling me who my president is or has it not occurred to
you,
just like so much has obviously not occurred to you, I may not be
American?

I would say you are just terribly childish!

Ole




Isaac Newton did not publish his personal opinions in
principia, however he was entitled to his personal opinions
and he expressed these in letters to colleagues. His opinion
was that ...

[Gravity is the result of]
"a condensation
causing a flow of ether
with a corresponding thinning of the ether density
associated with the increased velocity of flow."
--- Sir Isaac Newton, 1675
(letters to Oldenburg, Robert Boyle)

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