Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits

"Laurent" wrote in message
news
Please, carefully read this quote, and if you disgree with Bohm, be
kind enough to explain why.

--
Laurent

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

"Well, perhaps we should finish with this business about empty
space.

If you follow through the mathematics of the present Quantum Theory,
it treats the particle as what is called the quantized state of the
field, that is, as a field spread over space but in some mysterious
way with a quantum of energy.

Explicitly, in earlier editions of The Eff. Philosophy System, the first
principle is that of an indefinite, dynamic demarcatory interactivity
tension. (This principle would seem compatible with the above).

Now each wave in the field has a
certain quantum of energy

Demarcation.

proportional to its frequency. And if you
take the electromagnetic field, for example,in empty space, every
wave has what is called a zero point energy below which it cannot
go, even when there is no energy available. If you were to add up
all the waves in any region of empty space you would find that they
have an infinite amount of energy because an infinite number of
waves are possible. Now, however, you may have reason to suppose
that the energy may not be infinite, that maybe you cannot keep on
adding waves that are shorter and shorter, each contributing to the
energy. There may be some shortest possible wave, and then the total
number of waves would be finite and the energy would also be finite.

Now, you have to ask what would be the shortest length and there
seems to be reason to suspect that the gravitational theory may
provide us with some shortest length, for according to general
relativity, the gravitational field also determines what is meant by
"length" and metric. If you said the gravitational field was made up
of waves which were quantized in this way, you would find that there
was a certain length below which the gravitational field would
become undefinable because of this zero point movement and you
wouldn't be able to define length. Therefore, you could say the
property of measurement, length, fades out at very short distance
and you'd find the place at which it fades out would be about
10^ -33 cm. That is a very short distance because the shortest
distances that physicist have ever probed so far might be 10^ -16
cm. or so, and that's a long way to go. If you then compute the
amount of energy that would be in space, with that shortest possible
wave length, then it turns out that the energy in one cubic
centimeter would be immensely beyond the total energy of all the
known matter in the universe.

Present theory says that the vacuum contains all this energy which
is then ignored because it cannot be measured by an instrument. The
philosophy being that only what could be measured by an instrument
could be considered to be real, because the only point about the
reality of physics is the result of instruments, except that it is
also said that there are particles there that cannot be seen in
instruments at all. What you can say is that the present state of
theoretical physics implies that empty space has all this energy,
and matter is a slight increase of the energy, and therefore matter
is like a small ripple on this tremendous ocean of energy, having
some relative stability, and being manifest. Now, therefore, my
suggestion is that this implicate order implies a reality immensely
beyond what we call matter. Matter itself is merely a ripple in this
background.

Again, Effectuationism says "Effect- -Value- -Being, through
relationship- -tension 'of forces'". In other words, the effect exists -
exists through, indeed as its determining forces - not 'the forces'.
(So, even though our terms- -definitions are different, for example "exist",
we seem to be expressing the same principle). It would therefore, obviously,
be difficult to detect - that is for an effect to detect - that through, and
indeed as which it effects, other than inferentially. Of course, inferential
value is as valid as chemical, sensory or intellectual (and any other forms
of value). That is to say, what is inferred is as valid- -real as other
value. So, viva la Aether.


If you take a crystal which is at absolute zero it does not scatter
electrons. They go through it as if it were empty. And as soon as
you raise the temperature and (produce) inhomogenities, they
scatter. Now, if you used those electrons to observe the crystal
(e.g., by focusing them with an electron lens to make an image), all
you would see would be these little inhomogeneities and you would
say they are what exists and the crystal is what does not exist.
Right? I think this is a familiar idea, namely to say that what we
see immediately is really a very superficial affair. However, the
positivist used to say that what we see immediately is all there is
or all that counts, and that our ideas must simply correlate what we
see immediately.

So now, with this vast reserve of energy and empty space, saying
that matter itself is that small wave on empty space, then we could
better say that the space as a whole (and we start from the general
space) is the ground of existence, and we are in it. So the space
doesn't separate us, it unites us. Therefore it's like saying that
there are two separate points and a certain dotted line connects
them, which shows how we think they are related, or to say there is
a real line and that the points are abstractions from that.The line
is
the reality and the points are abstractions. In that sense we say
that
there are no separate people, you see, but that 'that' is an
abstraction
which comes by taking certain features as abstracted and
self-existent." --- David Bohm


--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

"ad" wrote in message
...
Bill Hobba wrote:
Tom it is usually not difficult to see when an argument turns
away from
science and ventures into philosophy. Take for example the
notion of time.
To do physics you simply need to assume time is what is read by
clocks. It
is a fact that one can do science with such a simple notion -
that this is
true is beyond question. But such is not satisfying to
philosophers and
they mount all sorts of arguments such as there must be some
underlying
reality where time exists independent of clocks or that reality
is what
instruments tell us and that is all there is or similar
philosophical stuff.
But such is irrelevant to science as can be seen by looking at
exactly how
each philosophical position will affect experimental results.
Since there
is none is not relevant to science. Thus if something is bad
philosophy it
does not follow it is bad physics because providing it has no
experimental
consequences then it is irrelevant to physics. Eg some consider
that
Euclidan geomtry exists a-priori (I belive Kant held that view).
Others
like Russell claim this is bad philosphy because it is "a theory
of
mathematical reasoning according to which the inference is never
strictly
logical, but always requires...'intuition'. The whole trend of
modern
mathematics...has been against this Kantian theory." But
physics does not
really care if it is bad philosphy or not. A theories
correspondence with
expriment is all that coutns.

Bill


If you really believe that then it's very sad. Is physics still
really
stuck in the dark ages like that? Don't they teach how to think in
physics courses?


We need to ban any extremist religious teachings from our classrooms
and promote the teaching of Natural Sciences worldwide. That's the
only way to the absolute truth.

But if we need to find the absolute truth we must philosophize.
There is no physics below the Planck scale. But there is energy, and
empty space does have physical properties.

--
Laurent

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
"Laurent" wrote in message
news
Please, carefully read this quote, and if you disgree with Bohm,
be
kind enough to explain why.

--
Laurent

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

"Well, perhaps we should finish with this business about empty
space.

If you follow through the mathematics of the present Quantum
Theory,
it treats the particle as what is called the quantized state of
the
field, that is, as a field spread over space but in some
mysterious
way with a quantum of energy.

Explicitly, in earlier editions of The Eff. Philosophy System, the
first
principle is that of an indefinite, dynamic demarcatory
interactivity
tension. (This principle would seem compatible with the above).

Now each wave in the field has a
certain quantum of energy

Demarcation.


If I follow you correctly, that's what makes it observable or
measurable. In other words, there can't be quantization until there
is demarcation. Or demarcation is the process of quantization.

Cool!

--
Laurent



proportional to its frequency. And if you
take the electromagnetic field, for example,in empty space,
every
wave has what is called a zero point energy below which it
cannot
go, even when there is no energy available. If you were to add
up
all the waves in any region of empty space you would find that
they
have an infinite amount of energy because an infinite number of
waves are possible. Now, however, you may have reason to suppose
that the energy may not be infinite, that maybe you cannot keep
on
adding waves that are shorter and shorter, each contributing to
the
energy. There may be some shortest possible wave, and then the
total
number of waves would be finite and the energy would also be
finite.

Now, you have to ask what would be the shortest length and there
seems to be reason to suspect that the gravitational theory may
provide us with some shortest length, for according to general
relativity, the gravitational field also determines what is
meant by
"length" and metric. If you said the gravitational field was
made up
of waves which were quantized in this way, you would find that
there
was a certain length below which the gravitational field would
become undefinable because of this zero point movement and you
wouldn't be able to define length. Therefore, you could say the
property of measurement, length, fades out at very short
distance
and you'd find the place at which it fades out would be about
10^ -33 cm. That is a very short distance because the shortest
distances that physicist have ever probed so far might be
10^ -16
cm. or so, and that's a long way to go. If you then compute the
amount of energy that would be in space, with that shortest
possible
wave length, then it turns out that the energy in one cubic
centimeter would be immensely beyond the total energy of all the
known matter in the universe.

Present theory says that the vacuum contains all this energy
which
is then ignored because it cannot be measured by an instrument.
The
philosophy being that only what could be measured by an
instrument
could be considered to be real, because the only point about the
reality of physics is the result of instruments, except that it
is
also said that there are particles there that cannot be seen in
instruments at all. What you can say is that the present state
of
theoretical physics implies that empty space has all this
energy,
and matter is a slight increase of the energy, and therefore
matter
is like a small ripple on this tremendous ocean of energy,
having
some relative stability, and being manifest. Now, therefore, my
suggestion is that this implicate order implies a reality
immensely
beyond what we call matter. Matter itself is merely a ripple in
this
background.

Again, Effectuationism says "Effect- -Value- -Being, through
relationship- -tension 'of forces'". In other words, the effect
exists -
exists through, indeed as its determining forces - not 'the
forces'.
(So, even though our terms- -definitions are different, for
example "exist",
we seem to be expressing the same principle). It would therefore,
obviously,
be difficult to detect - that is for an effect to detect - that
through, and
indeed as which it effects, other than inferentially. Of course,
inferential
value is as valid as chemical, sensory or intellectual (and any
other forms
of value). That is to say, what is inferred is as valid- -real as
other
value. So, viva la Aether.


If you take a crystal which is at absolute zero it does not
scatter
electrons. They go through it as if it were empty. And as soon
as
you raise the temperature and (produce) inhomogenities, they
scatter. Now, if you used those electrons to observe the crystal
(e.g., by focusing them with an electron lens to make an image),
all
you would see would be these little inhomogeneities and you
would
say they are what exists and the crystal is what does not exist.
Right? I think this is a familiar idea, namely to say that what
we
see immediately is really a very superficial affair. However,
the
positivist used to say that what we see immediately is all there
is
or all that counts, and that our ideas must simply correlate
what we
see immediately.

So now, with this vast reserve of energy and empty space, saying
that matter itself is that small wave on empty space, then we
could
better say that the space as a whole (and we start from the
general
space) is the ground of existence, and we are in it. So the
space
doesn't separate us, it unites us. Therefore it's like saying
that
there are two separate points and a certain dotted line connects
them, which shows how we think they are related, or to say there
is
a real line and that the points are abstractions from that.The
line
is
the reality and the points are abstractions. In that sense we
say
that
there are no separate people, you see, but that 'that' is an
abstraction
which comes by taking certain features as abstracted and
self-existent." --- David Bohm


--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...

Just to look at the night sky and realize that every object in it
represents the past is enough to make us wonder what kind of weird
world is this. Photons bring us the past. Information from the past
is locked into photons. We can even look at what the universe was
billions of years ago. Our capacity to see is closely related to
consciousness and consciousness is closely related to light (or to
the information contained within it).

How can someone not philosophize?

--
Laurent

Slightly off threadlet.


"Laurent" wrote in message
...

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
"Laurent" wrote in message
news
Please, carefully read this quote, and if you disgree with Bohm,
be
kind enough to explain why.

--
Laurent

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

"Well, perhaps we should finish with this business about empty
space.

If you follow through the mathematics of the present Quantum
Theory,
it treats the particle as what is called the quantized state of
the
field, that is, as a field spread over space but in some
mysterious
way with a quantum of energy.

Explicitly, in earlier editions of The Eff. Philosophy System, the
first
principle is that of an indefinite, dynamic demarcatory
interactivity
tension. (This principle would seem compatible with the above).

Now each wave in the field has a
certain quantum of energy

Demarcation.


If I follow you correctly, that's what makes it observable or
measurable. In other words, there can't be quantization until there
is demarcation. Or demarcation is the process of quantization.

Cool!

Yes, quantization is demarcation.

I guess the main intended message of my post was that it is through
inference we should satisfy ourselves about the ether- -matter (or whatever
(terminology- -principles) one comes up with) - and that I come down on the
side of ether- -matter, much as in the Bohr quote - in so far as I
understand it. Having settled on, or premised principles one would then
proceed to develop or experiment accordingly (of course).

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

"Laurent" wrote in message
...

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...

Just to look at the night sky and realize that every object in it
represents the past is enough to make us wonder what kind of weird
world is this.

Well, my position is that the forces through which we effect -
including
light (from the past) - express the principle of demarcatory
interactivity
and so, subject to inherent constraints of that, express the entire
universe - which I gather is quite close to what you think. Just how
much we
are able to get out of the forces which we express (through and indeed
as
which we effect) is another matter. It varies from one to the other of
the
many faces, inferentially, effected.

Photons bring us the past. Information from the past
is locked into photons. We can even look at what the universe was
billions of years ago. Our capacity to see is closely related to
consciousness and consciousness is closely related to light (or to
the information contained within it).

How can someone not philosophize?


I think it is more that they philosophise that a kind of emptiness is
the (philosophical) reality. No problem to me, as I find that
diversity is the name of the game.

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

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

"Bill Hobba" skrev i en meddelelse
...

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

"Bill Hobba" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"tadchem" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"ad" wrote in message
...
Laurent wrote:
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
Physics is not philosophy.


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


Exactly. Physics, if done right, is the instantiation of good
philosophy.

And the evidence of this statement is?

The 'evidence' is the contrapositive statement: bad philosophy is
philosophy
that is not 'good physics' - i.e. empirically verifiable (either
because
it
is *logically* flawed or it simply fails *physical* testing).

Tom it is usually not difficult to see when an argument turns away
from
science and ventures into philosophy. Take for example the notion
of
time.
To do physics you simply need to assume time is what is read by
clocks.
It
is a fact that one can do science with such a simple notion - that
this
is
true is beyond question. But such is not satisfying to philosophers
and
they mount all sorts of arguments such as there must be some
underlying
reality where time exists independent of clocks or that reality is
what
instruments tell us and that is all there is or similar
philosophical
stuff.
But such is irrelevant to science as can be seen by looking at
exactly
how
each philosophical position will affect experimental results. Since
there
is none is not relevant to science. Thus if something is bad
philosophy
it
does not follow it is bad physics because providing it has no
experimental
consequences then it is irrelevant to physics. Eg some consider
that
Euclidan geomtry exists a-priori (I belive Kant held that view).
Others
like Russell claim this is bad philosphy because it is "a theory of
mathematical reasoning according to which the inference is never
strictly
logical, but always requires...'intuition'. The whole trend of
modern
mathematics...has been against this Kantian theory." But physics
does
not
really care if it is bad philosphy or not. A theories
correspondence
with
expriment is all that coutns.


Is this Billy Hobba talking a kind of "philosophical mumbo jumbo"?
And what has that with the aether and aether-physics to do?

So sorry your reasoning ability is so impaired that you consider the
fact
the aether has never been detected is not relevant to its existence.
That
is one obvious consequence of 'A theories correspondence with experiment
is
all that counts'; but reasoning is not your strong suit. Actually in
your
case I would settle for simple coherency.


Time, Mr. Hobba, is duration, whether you and your clock exists.
And duration match some movement in space, which is measured
by the length of the path of movement, it is the so-called distance,
while movement itself is measured by the speed of movement, it is
the so-called velocity. All of it without the presence of you and your
clock, and even without your observation at all.

Make a prediction at variance with current theories with your gibberish.
Can't do that? - then it is scientifically of zero value.


If, however you want to do physics, which I doubt, you have to
consider whether your clock is too fast or too slow. If it is moving,
or if it is at rest. If some external forces may effect your clock,
which is made of a good many massive parts effected to expansion
or contraction by their temperature, as also by the viscosity of the
lubrication of the working parts, and - first and foremost - by the
(variable?) force(s?) driving your clock, that constantly interacts
with the physical fields and forces mediated by the space-time-
energy continuum of the aether, and do so by enduring exchange
of radiant energy between your clock and the aether.

You mean this aether that has never been detected? Wake up from your
delusions.


All that philosophical mumbo jumbo should be basic knowledge
to you Mr. Hobba, so when do you begin speak physics of the
space-time-energy continuum which is The Aether, as it has been
in countless æons of time, - for the old Greeks as for us meaning
from eternity by duration of concept, implicating that it be so also
for ever, independent of any human definition or description?

So tell us now, what is physics about?

See a dicitonary - The science of matter and energy and of interactions
between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics,
optics,
mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern
extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state
physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

And what should aether physics be about?

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

Will you please get to physics Bill, if this is
some physics news group, and not about your private and, as
it seems, very primitive philosophy, which you probably have
less idea about than about physics and the history of physics?

Sure - as soon as crackpots like yourself stop deluding us with rubbish
about an aether that has never been detected.


Dear Bill,
You have been told what the aether is and where to find it.

Since it has never been found you can not claim it exists.

It is definitely not "empty space in which the Universe sits".

I never said it was.

You will never detect it because you believe you are deluded.

I believe I am deluded?

Hence you deny solid logic and scientific facts asking for
predictions from crackpots you stubbornly assert are worse
morons than yourself. This is your philosophy and creed of
some weired religion in which you hope to find your salvation.

I ask for nothing from you - except for a bit of coherency and not gibberish
like 'You will never detect it because you believe you are deluded.' But
judging from your postings I am unlikely to get it.


Therefore you will never get to physics, and as regards your
primitive line of thoughts, you will probably never be able to
understand how science works and why civilized manners
are preferred in scientific discussions. - I predict that!

I judge people on what they write. If they write gibberish like 'You will
never detect it because you believe you are deluded' then they will get a
reply accordingly - which is to do something about the dysfunctional logical
processes that causes them to post such rubbish.

Bill


That is quite O.K. Don't worry, be happy! But please do not
pretend that you have anything worth to say about science.

When you make postings "to learn science", as you coin it,
please do not waste other peoples' time with your funny and
wrong ideas about their personallity and qualifications or
with your experiencies about remedies and drugs, you think
may help them as it has helped yourself. Don't do that, because
it is simply irrelevant noise, which has nothing to say in science.

Then they should post with greater coherency.

Bill


If you do not agree in some statement, simply show why you
believe it is false or wrong. If you agree to something and see
further aspects that may develop the idea and further discussion,
give your opinion without your personal values about those
with whom you interlope. Otherwise, keep happily silent.

Be good, and have a nice day!
Ole

"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.

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

Laurent wrote:
"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?


Right, if it isn't matter, how could even look for it?

But you can indirectly detected by measuring inertia and momentum.

No, you can't. People that believe in the aether say it isn't even measurable
indirectly, since it doesn't affect anything in a measurable way.

At least gravity does so.

"Laurent" wrote in message
...

"ad" wrote in message
...
Bill Hobba wrote:
Tom it is usually not difficult to see when an argument turns
away from
science and ventures into philosophy. Take for example the
notion of time.
To do physics you simply need to assume time is what is read by
clocks. It
is a fact that one can do science with such a simple notion -
that this is
true is beyond question. But such is not satisfying to
philosophers and
they mount all sorts of arguments such as there must be some
underlying
reality where time exists independent of clocks or that reality
is what
instruments tell us and that is all there is or similar
philosophical stuff.
But such is irrelevant to science as can be seen by looking at
exactly how
each philosophical position will affect experimental results.
Since there
is none is not relevant to science. Thus if something is bad
philosophy it
does not follow it is bad physics because providing it has no
experimental
consequences then it is irrelevant to physics. Eg some consider
that
Euclidan geomtry exists a-priori (I belive Kant held that view).
Others
like Russell claim this is bad philosphy because it is "a theory
of
mathematical reasoning according to which the inference is never
strictly
logical, but always requires...'intuition'. The whole trend of
modern
mathematics...has been against this Kantian theory." But
physics does not
really care if it is bad philosphy or not. A theories
correspondence with
expriment is all that coutns.

Bill


If you really believe that then it's very sad. Is physics still
really
stuck in the dark ages like that? Don't they teach how to think in
physics courses?


We need to ban any extremist religious teachings from our classrooms
and promote the teaching of Natural Sciences worldwide. That's the
only way to the absolute truth.

But if we need to find the absolute truth we must philosophize.
There is no physics below the Planck scale. But there is energy, and
empty space does have physical properties.

Unreal. It probably has escaped the posters notice he is simply replacing
'extremist religious teachings' with his 'extremist teachings' based on hot
air.

Bill