Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits

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.

Can space exist independently from matter? Is space primary, not
derivable from anything else, non-reducible, or is it a product?
Since empty space is not material, not subject to time, can we say
that empty space is eternal, not subject to change or process?

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.

Is empty space really there? Can you prove it? Can you measure it?
If the aether really were empirically untenable, could it still be
considered as real? When you mathematically describe the rotation of
an object in empty space, do you think of empty space as real? I
mean, if you were the only particle in space, how could you tell
when spinning or accelerating?

Supposedly, MMX results mean that the aether is immaterial and
unobservable. Now, if empty space were here before matter and could
exist independently from the Universe, isn't the classical vacuum
immaterial and unobservable too?

To exist, things must be in spacetime, and the aether is not in
spacetime, it is before spacetime, so it is but doesn't exist.

Matter is continuously changing, becoming, what was a second ago
isn't any more, but the only things real or meaningful to us humans
are the information and process through which they become. Empty
space (aether) is what is real, matter and fields are a little more
than just apparitions made from active information (energy). Basil
Hiley is correct when he says that being is a relative invariant in
the process of becoming, existing is not the same as being.

Existence starts with the field, and before that there is the
aether. Aether is before air. The aether is, but since it is not
matter and does not occupy any space, it does not exist in
spacetime. The aether is dimensionless, it is before geometry.
Spacetime and geometrization come after the aether. Aether is
primary. 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.

Aether is not in spacetime, spacetime is in the aether. The aether
is physical but immaterial. 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. 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.

Some claim that space has no physical properties, but if you
eliminate the notions of permittivity (e0) and permeability (m0)
from Maxwell and Einstein's theories, they fall apart. They believe
in the reality of nothingness and accept that notion as an integral
part of their physics. They say that empty space as such is real,
but can't even ascribe any physical properties to it. At least
Einstein's aether is real BECAUSE of its physical nature.

All you need to be physical is to be able to act as a force. To be
real there is no need for dimensions or geometry. We need to think
of empty space as a physical but immaterial substance. Einstein
called it the gravitational, relativistic aether.

In Einstein's view your 'perfectly flat balanced vacuum state' does
not move, but helps determine ratios like permittivity, permeability
and the propagation vector of fields and light rays.

Einstein said that matter and fields are made from the same basic
substance, material space is synonymous to the field. He also said
that there can't be a Universe without an aether, that the aether is
the seat to the electromagnetic and gravitational fields, and that
without fields there can't be matter or CMBR.

Einstein's aether is not the same as his spacetime, spacetime is the
aether's product and is synonymous to Timothy Boyer's material
space - which is nothing more than the CMBR and EMR combined.
Einstein's spacetime is 4-dimensional, time is included in the
structure of material space, that's why he termed it spacetime.


AETHER AND RELATIVITY

GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians trick
to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty). 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.

According to Timothy Boyer, the CMBR is constituted by at least two
different spectrums, one is noisy and expanding while the other is
self-organizing and condensing. One exhibits negative gravitation,
the other positive gravitation. From one space is created, from the
other, matter. Matter waves are contantly flowing inwards into
matter, while heat and light flow away from matter. There is a
continuos condensation and expansion of space particles (CMBR)
taking place.

Material space is made from two types of particles, one resists
compression or exhibits negative-gravitation (thermal radiation,
light), the other is infinitely compressible and exhibits
positive-gravitation (ZPR, dark matter).

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]

Now, if material space is made from particles, then it may be
subject to changes in pressure and density, like a gas. Therefore,
if space particles (dark matter, ZPR, quantum matter...), carried by
matter waves, continuously condense into material objects, that
would mean that the closer you get to the object the denser the
space would be, as a function of the object's mass and radius,
explaining why gravitic pressure obeys the inverse square law.

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

The gravitational field is continuos, what is quantized by
matter-waves is the CMBR. As the CMBR spins and cuts the
gravitational field in a circular motion, there is a friction which
creates matter-waves, or inwardly flowing photons - just as
electromagnetic waves (photons) are created when you shake an
electron. This photons are moved by a force orthogonal to the
direction of rotation, inwardly carrying CMBR particles to the
center of the system. This quantization depends on the
characteristics of the matter-waves, which in turn depend on the
characteristics of the rotating material body. This model explains
why some planets have greater concentrations of some elements than
others.

I agree with most of what CMBR etherists say, but I think we still
need an immaterial aether which serves as the seat for the
electromagnetic and gravitational fields.

Einstein presented a different concept with his 1920 essay "Ether
and the Theory of Relativity". What he termed the 'gravitational
ether' or the 'relativistic ether' came from a completely different
idea. Motion and particulation can't be applied as properties to
Einstein's aether, it is one and has no components. This oneness
explains action at a distance and inertia. CMBR is material, and
Einstein's aether is physical but immaterial. First there needs to
be an aether before we can have fields, spacetime, matter or a CMBR.

Einstein's gravitational aether is Newton's absolute space mixed
with Mach's aether. It's an aether enbued with physical properties
that help determine the formation and structure of fields.

Physical because it helps determine ratios like the permittivity and
permeability of free space. Ratios on which the existence and
behaviour of all fields entirely depend. Without fields you can't
have any type of matter/particle. And immaterial because it lacks
properties like extension or motion, it does not move and it has no
parts or components in the material sense.

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

Because the aether is immaterial, it can't be quantized like
material space or CMBR. The aether is before spacetime. Einstein was
correct in his claim of a background free universe, the aether can't
even be called a reference frame, it is immaterial, therefore lacks
any landmarks. Einstein's gravitational aether does not represent an
absolute frame. The aether is not material, therefore, it can't
represent a background.

In Einstein's view, material space can't exist without time,
process, or change, so he calls material reality spacetime. His
aether is not a material reference frame. In Einstein's view, we
have a background free Universe, in the material sense. In
Einstein's GTR material space is 4-dimensional (spacetime), but not
his aether, and when you take time and motion from the theory you
are left with Einstein's gravitational aether, which is
complimentary to Newton's absolute 3D space.

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

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

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.

If material space (CMBR) were primary, then spatial extensions
wouldn't be variable, and that's what is claimed by Relativity. In
spacetime, space-like separations are supposed to be relative.

For reality to take place all physical laws must remain constant,
independently from the inertial frame, and because the aether is
physically finite, there must be space contractions and time
dilations in relation to slower moving inertial frames. Even though
proportions are kept, dimensions are constantly adjusted to fit the
inertial frame.

c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep) - (where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
permittivity)

The only reason this relationship holds true is because the speed of
light (and of all electromagnetic phenomena) is determined at the
aether level. It remains constant in all frames because it is not
dependent on a coordinate system like matter with mass is.

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, but what determines the path of those
particles, the direction of propagation, the force lines, is the
gravitational aether.

Fields and matter are observable, measurable, the aether is not.
Fields have a geometric structure, the aether does not. When you
describe a field you may talk about intensity, density, size or
magnitude, but none of those concepts can be properly applied to the
description of Einstein's gravitational aether.

CMBR is material space and Einstein's aether is synonymous to empty
space, or Newton's absolute space, or Mach's momentum space.

[The term aether was re-introduced early in the 20th century by
scientists like Einstein and others as they were trying to describe
a substance, a thing. Calling it aether, they thought, would be less
controversial than calling God a thing.]

"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. That the above is not science can easily be seen
if you examine the experimental consequences of the assumption - there are
none.


Can space exist independently from matter? Is space primary, not
derivable from anything else, non-reducible, or is it a product?
Since empty space is not material, not subject to time, can we say
that empty space is eternal, not subject to change or process?

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.

Is empty space really there? Can you prove it? Can you measure it?
If the aether really were empirically untenable, could it still be
considered as real? When you mathematically describe the rotation of
an object in empty space, do you think of empty space as real? I
mean, if you were the only particle in space, how could you tell
when spinning or accelerating?

Supposedly, MMX results mean that the aether is immaterial and
unobservable. Now, if empty space were here before matter and could
exist independently from the Universe, isn't the classical vacuum
immaterial and unobservable too?

To exist, things must be in spacetime, and the aether is not in
spacetime, it is before spacetime, so it is but doesn't exist.

Matter is continuously changing, becoming, what was a second ago
isn't any more, but the only things real or meaningful to us humans
are the information and process through which they become. Empty
space (aether) is what is real, matter and fields are a little more
than just apparitions made from active information (energy). Basil
Hiley is correct when he says that being is a relative invariant in
the process of becoming, existing is not the same as being.

Existence starts with the field, and before that there is the
aether. Aether is before air. The aether is, but since it is not
matter and does not occupy any space, it does not exist in
spacetime. The aether is dimensionless, it is before geometry.
Spacetime and geometrization come after the aether. Aether is
primary. 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.

Aether is not in spacetime, spacetime is in the aether. The aether
is physical but immaterial. 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. 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.

Some claim that space has no physical properties, but if you
eliminate the notions of permittivity (e0) and permeability (m0)
from Maxwell and Einstein's theories, they fall apart. They believe
in the reality of nothingness and accept that notion as an integral
part of their physics. They say that empty space as such is real,
but can't even ascribe any physical properties to it. At least
Einstein's aether is real BECAUSE of its physical nature.

All you need to be physical is to be able to act as a force. To be
real there is no need for dimensions or geometry. We need to think
of empty space as a physical but immaterial substance. Einstein
called it the gravitational, relativistic aether.

In Einstein's view your 'perfectly flat balanced vacuum state' does
not move, but helps determine ratios like permittivity, permeability
and the propagation vector of fields and light rays.

Einstein said that matter and fields are made from the same basic
substance, material space is synonymous to the field. He also said
that there can't be a Universe without an aether, that the aether is
the seat to the electromagnetic and gravitational fields, and that
without fields there can't be matter or CMBR.

Einstein's aether is not the same as his spacetime, spacetime is the
aether's product and is synonymous to Timothy Boyer's material
space - which is nothing more than the CMBR and EMR combined.
Einstein's spacetime is 4-dimensional, time is included in the
structure of material space, that's why he termed it spacetime.


AETHER AND RELATIVITY

GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians trick
to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty). 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.

According to Timothy Boyer, the CMBR is constituted by at least two
different spectrums, one is noisy and expanding while the other is
self-organizing and condensing. One exhibits negative gravitation,
the other positive gravitation. From one space is created, from the
other, matter. Matter waves are contantly flowing inwards into
matter, while heat and light flow away from matter. There is a
continuos condensation and expansion of space particles (CMBR)
taking place.

Material space is made from two types of particles, one resists
compression or exhibits negative-gravitation (thermal radiation,
light), the other is infinitely compressible and exhibits
positive-gravitation (ZPR, dark matter).

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]

Now, if material space is made from particles, then it may be
subject to changes in pressure and density, like a gas. Therefore,
if space particles (dark matter, ZPR, quantum matter...), carried by
matter waves, continuously condense into material objects, that
would mean that the closer you get to the object the denser the
space would be, as a function of the object's mass and radius,
explaining why gravitic pressure obeys the inverse square law.

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

The gravitational field is continuos, what is quantized by
matter-waves is the CMBR. As the CMBR spins and cuts the
gravitational field in a circular motion, there is a friction which
creates matter-waves, or inwardly flowing photons - just as
electromagnetic waves (photons) are created when you shake an
electron. This photons are moved by a force orthogonal to the
direction of rotation, inwardly carrying CMBR particles to the
center of the system. This quantization depends on the
characteristics of the matter-waves, which in turn depend on the
characteristics of the rotating material body. This model explains
why some planets have greater concentrations of some elements than
others.

I agree with most of what CMBR etherists say, but I think we still
need an immaterial aether which serves as the seat for the
electromagnetic and gravitational fields.

Einstein presented a different concept with his 1920 essay "Ether
and the Theory of Relativity". What he termed the 'gravitational
ether' or the 'relativistic ether' came from a completely different
idea. Motion and particulation can't be applied as properties to
Einstein's aether, it is one and has no components. This oneness
explains action at a distance and inertia. CMBR is material, and
Einstein's aether is physical but immaterial. First there needs to
be an aether before we can have fields, spacetime, matter or a CMBR.

Einstein's gravitational aether is Newton's absolute space mixed
with Mach's aether. It's an aether enbued with physical properties
that help determine the formation and structure of fields.

Physical because it helps determine ratios like the permittivity and
permeability of free space. Ratios on which the existence and
behaviour of all fields entirely depend. Without fields you can't
have any type of matter/particle. And immaterial because it lacks
properties like extension or motion, it does not move and it has no
parts or components in the material sense.

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

Because the aether is immaterial, it can't be quantized like
material space or CMBR. The aether is before spacetime. Einstein was
correct in his claim of a background free universe, the aether can't
even be called a reference frame, it is immaterial, therefore lacks
any landmarks. Einstein's gravitational aether does not represent an
absolute frame. The aether is not material, therefore, it can't
represent a background.

In Einstein's view, material space can't exist without time,
process, or change, so he calls material reality spacetime. His
aether is not a material reference frame. In Einstein's view, we
have a background free Universe, in the material sense. In
Einstein's GTR material space is 4-dimensional (spacetime), but not
his aether, and when you take time and motion from the theory you
are left with Einstein's gravitational aether, which is
complimentary to Newton's absolute 3D space.

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

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

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.

If material space (CMBR) were primary, then spatial extensions
wouldn't be variable, and that's what is claimed by Relativity. In
spacetime, space-like separations are supposed to be relative.

For reality to take place all physical laws must remain constant,
independently from the inertial frame, and because the aether is
physically finite, there must be space contractions and time
dilations in relation to slower moving inertial frames. Even though
proportions are kept, dimensions are constantly adjusted to fit the
inertial frame.

c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep) - (where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
permittivity)

The only reason this relationship holds true is because the speed of
light (and of all electromagnetic phenomena) is determined at the
aether level. It remains constant in all frames because it is not
dependent on a coordinate system like matter with mass is.

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, but what determines the path of those
particles, the direction of propagation, the force lines, is the
gravitational aether.

Fields and matter are observable, measurable, the aether is not.
Fields have a geometric structure, the aether does not. When you
describe a field you may talk about intensity, density, size or
magnitude, but none of those concepts can be properly applied to the
description of Einstein's gravitational aether.

CMBR is material space and Einstein's aether is synonymous to empty
space, or Newton's absolute space, or Mach's momentum space.

[The term aether was re-introduced early in the 20th century by
scientists like Einstein and others as they were trying to describe
a substance, a thing. Calling it aether, they thought, would be less
controversial than calling God a thing.]

Yea Einstein reintroduced the concept of the aether in the 1920's but was
unsure of what impact it would have on future physics. We now know the
answer - none.

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.

Bill

"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.

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

Quantum Electrodynamics lacks such a base but it is the best physical
theory ever devised. Your assertion is false. What we need is a correct
physical theory that produces true predictions covering a wide range of
objects and phenomena. QED is such a theory. It does not deal with what
goes on within the nucleus of an atom and it does not address matters
gravitational but it handles everything else, and superbly.

So far there are few, if any, philosophical systems that can deal with
an acausal construct. Most philosophy is in the thrall of Aristotle or
Kant and is hung up on causes.

Bob Kolker

Laurent wrote:
Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
[...] Nothingness does not exist and creation ex-nihilo is not physically
possible. [...]

About the only person who was at all successful with that style of
"doing" physics was Aristotle. It does not work. The world does not
conform to your wishes and desires. To do physics you must do
experiments and apply the scientific method.....


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:


About the only person who was at all successful with that style of
"doing" physics was Aristotle. It does not work. The world does not
conform to your wishes and desires. To do physics you must do
experiments and apply the scientific method.....

Aristotle's -Physics- and -On the Heavens- were the least successful of
his many writings. The defects of -Physics- were known and addressed as
early as the sixth century c.e. Google John Philliponos or Goodgle
Phillip the Grammarian to see how the notion of impetus was developed.
Impetus was an attempt to define the quantity of motion and is somewhat
like our modern notion of moementum.

Aristotle's science program failed because it demanded too much. He
required four kinds of causes for events and a notion of what things
were (substance) based on self evident a priori true judgements. The
problem is there are no such judgements that apply specifically to the
physical world (other than tautologies which tell us nothing). We have
to derive our basic principles of the physical world empirically.

Bob Kolker

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:GanHc.45968$%_6.8962@attbi_s01...


Tom Roberts wrote:


About the only person who was at all successful with that style
of
"doing" physics was Aristotle. It does not work. The world does
not
conform to your wishes and desires. To do physics you must do
experiments and apply the scientific method.....

Aristotle's -Physics- and -On the Heavens- were the least
successful of
his many writings. The defects of -Physics- were known and
addressed as
early as the sixth century c.e. Google John Philliponos or
Goodgle
Phillip the Grammarian to see how the notion of impetus was
developed.
Impetus was an attempt to define the quantity of motion and is
somewhat
like our modern notion of moementum.

Aristotle's science program failed because it demanded too much.
He
required four kinds of causes for events and a notion of what
things
were (substance) based on self evident a priori true judgements.
The
problem is there are no such judgements that apply specifically to
the
physical world (other than tautologies which tell us nothing). We
have
to derive our basic principles of the physical world empirically.

Bob Kolker



The Universe is self-reflective and self-organized, there is no
external oversight, nor some God sitting on a throne ready to strike
at us for our stupidity.

God is Spirit and Spirit is energy enbued with intention.

Intention is a primordial force, 'desire' and 'will' come after,
with the anthropomorphization of matter. We are not
anthropomorphizing the universe, the universe is anthropomorphizing
itself.

The God I believe in is omnipresent and eternal but is not all
powerful, it can't make any decisions. It is not a person, it has no
body or brain, it is not matter, but it is. It is where the laws
that determine how the four fundamental forces of Nature (the strong
and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity) behave are
set. Laws by which active information (matter) exists. It is the
substrate, the origin to all that exists. Can't say it's here or
there, because it is everywhere. It can't be measured. You can't say
it's big or small, because it is not matter, yet it contains the
whole universe.

There is only one truth (a single theory).

God is one.

[The term aether was re-introduced early in the 20th century by
scientists like Einstein and others as they were trying to describe
a substance, a thing. Calling it aether, they thought, would be less
controversial than calling God a thing. That's why I tend to use
this term so much, but they are basically the same thing.]

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:GanHc.45968$%_6.8962@attbi_s01...


Tom Roberts wrote:


About the only person who was at all successful with that style
of
"doing" physics was Aristotle. It does not work. The world does
not
conform to your wishes and desires. To do physics you must do
experiments and apply the scientific method.....

Aristotle's -Physics- and -On the Heavens- were the least
successful of
his many writings. The defects of -Physics- were known and
addressed as
early as the sixth century c.e. Google John Philliponos or
Goodgle
Phillip the Grammarian to see how the notion of impetus was
developed.
Impetus was an attempt to define the quantity of motion and is
somewhat
like our modern notion of moementum.

Aristotle's science program failed because it demanded too much.
He
required four kinds of causes for events and a notion of what
things
were (substance) based on self evident a priori true judgements.
The
problem is there are no such judgements that apply specifically to
the
physical world (other than tautologies which tell us nothing). We
have
to derive our basic principles of the physical world empirically.

Bob Kolker



Read, Answer to Job, by Carl Gustav Jung

and

Fear and Trembling, by Soren Kierkegaard


You use physics to solve practical problems, that's good. I use it
to find out why and how I am.

--
Laurent

"Laurent" wrote in message
...

"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.

Yes - and that philosophical basis is correspondence with experiment - not
philosophical posturing with no real content.

Bill

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."