Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits

"Laurent" wrote in message
...

"MorituriMax" wrote in message
...
Laurent wrote:
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Laurent" wrote in message
...
Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits


"Must we assume that in the absence of particles and fields,
and in
the absence of space and time, there would be nothing?" - John
Dobson


----------------------------------------------------------------

Nothingness does not exist and creation ex-nihilo is not
physically
possible.

Physics is not philosophy.

Right, but we need a strong philosophical base in order to do
good
physics.

As Bill said:
"As I said above try making some testable predictions with your
ideas. I think
you will find that rather difficult. Basically it is a load of
hot air."




I am not a physicist, nor a mathematician.

Just answer this - is empty space real, can you measure it?

The answer is in my essay.

But, even assuming the answer you arrive at is correct (and I have no doubt
philosopher would take you to task on it), exactly what experimental
consequences does it have? If you have none then it is not relevant to
science.

BTW we measure objects contained in space - measuring space itself is
meaningless philosophical gibberish. The term 'space' is far too vague to
answer questions like can we measure it - you need something much more
definite. In mathematics space and set are synonymous so you question is -
can we measure a set. The obvious answer is it is a meaningless question.
Euclidian space, for example, is defined by the properties of points and
lines laid out by Hilbert in his famous axioms. If that corresponds to
objects we call points and lines in the real world is an experimental
matter. So the question I ask of you is what space are you talking about,
what are the primitive objects of your space (eg points and lines), exactly
what properties do they have (ie their axioms) and exactly how do these
primitive objects correspond to things in the real world. Unless you can
answer such things then your really just waffling. As a philosophy type you
should acquaint yourself with Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
and its conclusion - Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Laurent" wrote in message
news

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Laurent" wrote in message
...

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in
message
news:hnwHc.55676$XM6.18922@attbi_s53...


Mitchell wrote:

The Aether is beyond any physical concept.

Then it is nonsense.

Bob Kolker



Just answer this - Is empty space real, can you observe and
measure
it?

Empty space is a concept that does not exist in nature -
introducing a
measuring instrument would no longer leave it empty. Take
your
philosophical waffle to a philosophy forum.

Bill



David Bohm was a world class physicist, yet, most of writings
are
deeply philosophical, same with Einstein and many others.

Tell me, exactly what papers of Einstein and Bohm are
philosophical? -
examples please.

I said writings, not specifically scientific papers. I know they
also wrote scientific papers, but that's not what I was referring
to.


Books by Bohm:


Wholeness and the Implicate Order


The Ending of Time


Quantum Theory


On Creativity


Thought as a System


Limits of Thought: Discussions between J. Krishnamurti and David
Bohm


Unfolding Meaning: A Weekend of Dialogue with David Bohm


Beyond Mechanism: The Universe in Recent Physics and Catholic
Thought


Bohm-Beiderman Correspondence: Volume 1: Creativity in Science

------------------------------

By Einstein:


Relativity: The Special and General Theory



Sidelights on Relativity



Ideas and Opinions

Laurent wrote:

I am not a physicist, nor a mathematician.

Just answer this - is empty space real, can you measure it?

The answer is in my essay.

Why should I read an essay about physics by someone who isn't a physicist, nor a
mathmetician. I might as well hire a donut vendor to write the next version MS
Windows.

Laurent wrote:

And the Apocalypse is inevitable, right?

If you think so.

People like you end up believing in supersticion.

Nope, we believe in things that we are qualified to understand.

Do you also go to church and read the Bible?

Irrelevant.

In article , "MorituriMax" writes:
Laurent wrote:

I am not a physicist, nor a mathematician.

Just answer this - is empty space real, can you measure it?

The answer is in my essay.

Why should I read an essay about physics by someone who isn't a physicist, nor a
mathmetician. I might as well hire a donut vendor to write the next version MS
Windows.

Might be an improvement:-)

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Mitchell wrote:
"MorituriMax" wrote in message
...
Mitchell wrote:
The Aether is beyond any physical concept.

Ketchup, like vengeance, is best served cold.

Boo hoo...

Hey, it's makes just as much sense as yours did.

Laurent wrote:
I said writings, not specifically scientific papers. I know they
also wrote scientific papers, but that's not what I was referring
to.

So what's your point? Scientists can only write about science?

Laurent wrote:

Bohm said - space does not separate us, it is what unites us.

If not, then how could there be wholeness in time and space.

Yoo hoo! Over here!!! You're still in the wrong forum...

"Laurent" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Laurent" wrote in message
...

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:f_yHc.22916$WX.8619@attbi_s51...


Laurent wrote:

Just answer this - Is empty space real, can you observe and
measure
it?

I walk around in it. And I can measure some of it with a
yard-stick.

Bob Kolker


You may measure distance or separation between two objects with
a
stick, but not empty, free or absolute space (however you prefer
to
call it). You can't tell how big it is because it isn't matter,
it
is dimensionless. You can't see it even if you are looking at
it,
yet, it contains the whole universe.

And the testable predictions at variance with other hypothesis is?
As I
said previously it is obvious your primary interest is
philosophy - not
physics. Post elsewhere.

Bill



Bohm said - space does not separate us, it is what unites us.

If not, then how could there be wholeness in time and space.

Giiberish of zero inherent worth.


--
Laurent

--------------------------------------

Here you can find some 'testable predictions at variance with other
hypothesis'.


http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com/start.html

http://www.tshankha.com/index.htm

http://www.fervor.demon.co.uk/

Had a quick look. It is obvious rubbish eg it says:

In defending the current usage of the word mass when asked whether "photons
have mass", the meaning is often assigned in an arbitrary manner. The
following argument was devised so that, whatever meaning was attached to the
word mass, logically the proof would hold. In short, whatever meaning is
applied to the word mass, and accepting the principles of conservation then
logically it followed that photons have mass.

1. Define the meaning of mass as X
2. For X the reader of this proof puts in his definition of what he means by
mass.
3. Assume that we have an isolated system in which we have one positron and
one electron in close proximity and with negligible kinetic energy.
4. It is true that both the electron and positron have the property X. (If
thereader thinks this is false then either go to the end or to the beginning
and start again.)
5. Therefore the system contains the property X
6. After a short period of time the positron and electron mutually
annihilate with the production of two photons.
7. It is true that in any closed system X is conserved. then
If 7 is true then it is true that photons have X.
If 7 is false then this does not constitute a proof that photons have mass.
For interest my X is defined as:- X is a measure of the inertia, and
therefore weight, of a body.

The above is obviously written by an ignorant dolt without a clue. In SR
for particles with mass E = M (in units where c = 1), thus mass is
equivalent to energy. But, since the equation only applies to particles
with mass, the converse is not true ie the equation is not saying energy has
mass. Hence the conserved quantity is energy not mass and why the
fundamental particles have their mass expressed in units of energy.

Tim Shuba had the correct idea in setting follow-ups to
alt.sci.physics.new-theories. I would do so except I use outlook express.
Posting to all the above newsgroups is inconsiderate troll crank behavior.
In the interests of not providing further encouragement I will not be
replying further to this turkey.

Bill

In article ,
wrote:
In article , "MorituriMax"
writes:
Laurent wrote:

I am not a physicist, nor a mathematician.

Just answer this - is empty space real, can you measure it?

The answer is in my essay.

Why should I read an essay about physics by someone who isn't a
physicist, nor a
mathmetician. I might as well hire a donut vendor to write the next
version MS
Windows.

Might be an improvement:-)

Definitely. A donut vendor knows about production and what
"not working" means.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.