Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"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



Mass refers to the amount of process going on inside the particle,
photons being the particles with the least process going on.

--
Laurent

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"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


Yet, we spent years trying to measure aether drag, when all we had
to do was to say that inertia and momentum were the result of aether
drag.


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.


In the real world what's real is neither the line or the point,
what's real is the space in which they exist.


So the question I ask of you is what space are you
talking about,


I am talking about your revered classical vacuum.

--
Laurent


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

"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.



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

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



correction:

[Puthoff, Haisch, Rueda, Phys. Rev. A, 49, 678, 1994]

Laurent wrote:

Mass refers to the amount of process going on inside the particle,
photons being the particles with the least process going on.

"the amount of process going on" ? "least process going on" ?

"MorituriMax" wrote in message ...
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?

Science to you is only one particular thing?
Only selected special writings?

And the whole thought systems that brought the great
personalities to enlightenment are completely trivial?
They have nothing to do with science?
You are a bigot because you claim science to be only
one thing when it is also the people that do it.
It should not be subject to the elitism you push.
That is why Einstein hated authority.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light is falling --

In article , writes:
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.

My feelings exactly.

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

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

Mass refers to the amount of process going on inside the
particle,
photons being the particles with the least process going on.

"the amount of process going on" ? "least process going on" ?

Sure, matter is the result of process. It is active information.

"luke" wrote in message
om...
"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.


No, I am saying that all matter, including quantum matter (CMBR),
originates at the aether level, and that the aether itself is
immaterial.





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..


Is inertial space the same thing as Wheeler's quantum foam?




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..


I was just repeating what Einstein used to say - the aether is the
seat to all fields. - without an aether, there would be no fields,
hence, no universe. Fields are matter.




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.


If motion is not one of its properties, like Einstein said, then it
is eternal.

Read Einstein's 1920 essay - Ether and the Theory of Relativity



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.


Right, in spacetime it is, but the relativistic aether is before
spacetime.



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.


The aether is not composed by particles, that comes after, with the
Big Bang.




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.


Lets see what Bilge, Franz and Bill Hobba have to say about 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?


Read Timothy Boyer's essay - The Classical Vacuum




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.


Do you think state wave packet collapse happens to an object only
once, that after objective state reduction occurs an object
continues to float in space without any more stress-energy
expectation values to be reset following every new position in a
spacetime geometry?

Sir Roger Penrose says that every object's state wave collapses with
its own frequency.


Take a good look at the picture in this page.

http://cyberdyno1.tripod.com/mass.html



What do you think those ripples are made of?

They are made from ZPR, 10^-34m sized particles which are
continuosly condensed into forming bigger particles by matter waves.

Have any idea of how many times smaller is a ZPR particle compared
to electrons or protons at 10^-15 meter diameter?

It's like comparing planet Earth to the Milky Way.

The de Broglie's wavelength is in reality the space between the
ripples you see in that Laue Diffraction pattern.

There is information flowing in and out of every particle/wave
system. That's where Cramer's Transactional Interpretation and
Wheeler's Delayed Action come from.





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".


Again, the relativistic aether is no the same thing as the ZPR or
CMBR.




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.


I am not saying they said they didn't understand the aether, I am
saying it.



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

How do you explain repulsion? Particles pushing or hitting an
object, right? And attraction, like gravity, comes from particles
flowing into matter.

--
Laurent

"Laurent" wrote in message ...
"luke" wrote in message
om...
"Laurent" wrote in message
[...]
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.

No, I am saying that all matter, including quantum matter (CMBR),
originates at the aether level, and that the aether itself is
immaterial.


Well that is an interesting acronym for 'quantum matter', but I think
I can find meanings for those words s.t. I agree wtih your statement






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..


Is inertial space the same thing as Wheeler's quantum foam?


Could be..



[...]


? 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..


I was just repeating what Einstein used to say - the aether is the
seat to all fields. - without an aether, there would be no fields,
hence, no universe. Fields are matter.


OK, we agree.




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.


If motion is not one of its properties, like Einstein said, then it
is eternal.

Show me something that does not move and I'll tell you its velocity


Read Einstein's 1920 essay - Ether and the Theory of Relativity


Yes, a classic. And to think I read it first on usenet.



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.


Right, in spacetime it is, but the relativistic aether is before
spacetime.


Just because this aether is a seat for space-time (our metric defined
with light) does not mean that aethrons cannot have positions or
velocities..



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.


The aether is not composed by particles, that comes after, with the
Big Bang.


All things are made of the sum of their parts, or their 'particles'.




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.


Lets see what Bilge, Franz and Bill Hobba have to say about 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?


Read Timothy Boyer's essay - The Classical Vacuum

Thanks, that is a good read. Also from Scientific American:

Lee Smolin, 2004. Tney have been aetherist over ant SciAm for a
while, eh?






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.


Do you think state wave packet collapse happens to an object only
once, that after objective state reduction occurs an object
continues to float in space without any more stress-energy
expectation values to be reset following every new position in a
spacetime geometry?


Not often, no.



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..


How do you explain repulsion? Particles pushing or hitting an
object, right? And attraction, like gravity, comes from particles
flowing into matter.

OK, I could agree with that (again with very carful definitions), but
you said particles came from one end of the magnet to the other.
Which pole do they leave from? I prefer the description of aether
particles moving parallel to the vector potential.