"Laurent" wrote in message
...
On Apr 6, 1:44 am, "FrediFizzx" wrote:
"Laurent" wrote in message

...

Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits.

Well, that doesn't make much sense. You don't help your case much with
a statement like that. Empty space (the void) is the stage that ether
and *other* quantum objects play on.

Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum.

Also know as aether...

This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

The quantum vacumm moves? Isn't it a void, as in 'not matter'? How can
an immaterial substance move?

It sorta kinda moves .. it is connected to every physical particle and it
acts as
an inver tensor between said particles .. I call it the Quantum State as I
consider
the Aether as the left over energy of the Quantum Point of BB fame. and as
such
matter does not move through it as Maxwell and Einstine conceived and is why
we
cannot detect drag. But it is connected to matter and moves with matter.

Look at this concept on a 1 dim construct.

X'x = SPP'1, SPP'2,SPP'3 ect.
------ = QS (QP) (Quantum State with matter,
Quantum Point without matter)
or = direction of motion
+ or - = value of QS
^'x = point of observation

+ - + -
X'1-----------X'2---X'3---X'4---------X'5
^'1 ^'2 ^'3 ^'4 ^'5 ^'6 ^'7 ^'8


If I consider only X'1 and X'8 as they expand the QS reduces in steady state
value ( the analogy I use is an inverse rubber band where as you stretch the
band its tension decreases and increases as the SPP's move closer together
while always staying connected no matter the separation distance.)

If I try to observe this variance at say ^'6 I cannot detect this variance,
as I (X'4) exist within that which is varying. That's the intrinsic bias of
which I speak

If X'3 try's to observe X'2 and X'4 it again is biased and can never detect
the variance.

Now set all X'x's to ringing and producing EM waves propagated
along -------- the discreet waves can never be observed as any observation
will be of the heterodyned waves of all SPP's. Only if a observer was
outside could you observe a discreet wave. Now Lets send a wave pulse from
X'1 to X'5. The tension of the total QS sets the value of travel on a global
scale but as that wave passes ^'4 its now within a local point where the
value of QS is reduced and the velocity of the wave slows. But due to the
position of say X'2 it would never detect the variance. Locally it would
seem a constant value.

The variance of the QS between SPP's would be undetectable as a direct value
but would have a local effect that would be detectable and would seem to be
a observable force . This is the causation aspect of local gravity wells and
the mental construct of curved space/time.



Most likely we just don't know what all the quantum objects are yet. Or
their possible interactional configurations. Hopefully we will get some
more clues after the LHC has been running for awhile.

The quantum refers to a quantum of energy, in other words, an amount
of energy... the smallest amount of energy as far as we know.
Information (geometry) starts with the quantum. Existence starts with
the quantum. Before the quantum there is the aether. There can be an
aether without quanta but there can be no quanta without an aether.
The aether is before matter and it is dimensionless, like a point...
yet, it contains the Universe.

--
Laurent


Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

Dear Szczepan Bia3ek:

"Szczepan Bia3ek" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)"

Additionally, wave behavior describes
"dispersion",

Dispersion is frequency dependent. Compare
sound and ultrasound, radio waves and radar
waves. Our knowledge about waves is still
small.

Our knowledge of waves is enough to show dispersion is a problem
they cannot handle.

yet the photoelectric effect works for
individual photons emitted from distant
stars, and detected one-at-a-time (like with
the VLBA).

They are packets not photons.

No, they are no sort of wave, because there is no resonance
behavior. They are only momentum. They do not depend on a
Universe to contain that, and whether or not the Universe
allocates "size" or "speed" to that is none of the photon's
concern.

David A. Smith

"Paul Mays" wrote in message
...

"Laurent" wrote in message
...
On Apr 6, 1:44 am, "FrediFizzx" wrote:
"Laurent" wrote in message

...

Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits.

Well, that doesn't make much sense. You don't help your case much with
a statement like that. Empty space (the void) is the stage that ether
and *other* quantum objects play on.

Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum.

Also know as aether...

This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

The quantum vacumm moves? Isn't it a void, as in 'not matter'? How can
an immaterial substance move?

It sorta kinda moves .. it is connected to every physical particle and it
acts as
an inver tensor between said particles .. I call it the Quantum State as I
consider
the Aether as the left over energy of the Quantum Point of BB fame. and as
such
matter does not move through it as Maxwell and Einstine conceived and is
why
we
cannot detect drag. But it is connected to matter and moves with matter.

Look at this concept on a 1 dim construct.

X'x = SPP'1, SPP'2,SPP'3 ect.
------ = QS (QP) (Quantum State with matter,
Quantum Point without matter)
or = direction of motion
+ or - = value of QS
^'x = point of observation

+ - + -
X'1-----------X'2---X'3---X'4---------X'5
^'1 ^'2 ^'3 ^'4 ^'5 ^'6 ^'7 ^'8


If I consider only X'1 and X'8 as they expand the QS reduces in steady
state
value ( the analogy I use is an inverse rubber band where as you stretch
the
band its tension decreases and increases as the SPP's move closer together
while always staying connected no matter the separation distance.)

If I try to observe this variance at say ^'6 I cannot detect this
variance,
as I (X'4) exist within that which is varying. That's the intrinsic bias
of
which I speak

If X'3 try's to observe X'2 and X'4 it again is biased and can never
detect
the variance.

Now set all X'x's to ringing and producing EM waves propagated
along -------- the discreet waves can never be observed as any observation
will be of the heterodyned waves of all SPP's. Only if a observer was
outside could you observe a discreet wave. Now Lets send a wave pulse from
X'1 to X'5. The tension of the total QS sets the value of travel on a
global
scale but as that wave passes ^'4 its now within a local point where the
value of QS is reduced and the velocity of the wave slows. But due to the
position of say X'2 it would never detect the variance. Locally it would
seem a constant value.

The variance of the QS between SPP's would be undetectable as a direct
value
but would have a local effect that would be detectable and would seem to
be
a observable force . This is the causation aspect of local gravity wells
and
the mental construct of curved space/time.



Most likely we just don't know what all the quantum objects are yet. Or
their possible interactional configurations. Hopefully we will get some
more clues after the LHC has been running for awhile.

The quantum refers to a quantum of energy, in other words, an amount
of energy... the smallest amount of energy as far as we know.
Information (geometry) starts with the quantum. Existence starts with
the quantum. Before the quantum there is the aether. There can be an
aether without quanta but there can be no quanta without an aether.
The aether is before matter and it is dimensionless, like a point...
yet, it contains the Universe.

--
Laurent


Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations


Laurent,

I see it the same way but maybe with a bit of trouble
in the explanation.

The Quantum Point of which I speculate is as you say.
It exists as a indefinable energy from which matter may
or may not be converted out of. Indefinable in that it
contains no matter and therefore occupies no space. All
physical rules fail so it cannot be defined.

Once 2 Physical particles are converted the Universe exist
between those two particles and the Quantum exists as an
inverse tensor between those 2 physical particles. This is
what has been conceived as the Aether, I call it the Quantum State
as to my small brain that term better describes it.

The two particles are connected like a rubber band that has
inverse tensor aspect in that as they move further apart the
value of the tensor is reduced and if moved closer it is increased.

Each particle is set to ringing by the event of their conversion. This
ringing produces EM waves propagated through the QS between
them. But since for Particle A to observe Particle it must perceive
using EM waves A can never actually observe Particle B because
each particles waves heterodyne. So Particle A effects the observation
of B.

This basic concept explains the causation of Gravity and gives a
very simple view that allows existing SR,GR,QM to be in agreement.
Its explains why Maxwell's Aether cannot be detected by drag, and gives
a completely new way to conceive of the reality we observe from the
Macro to the Micro while only requiring 4 dimensions to explain all
the observable universe.

This postulate led me to predict that the Universe will expand with
an ever increasing rate of expansion in 89 so I can say recent observations
seem to agree. But it does lead to some assertions that cause physicist to
yell at me a lot. It leads to a view that c is variable, there are no
constants,
and that there is a Base Form of matter which I call a SPP ( Smallest
Physical Particle) which can never be directly observed. It also gives
a rational for duality of what seems to be massive particles.

I'm I wrong , more than likely, but I have yet to find anyone that has
actually attempted to understand my postulate that has given me an
argument that has made me think I'm incorrect. If I'm correct then this
postulate is a TOE and leads to a GUT.

On Apr 9, 7:59*am, dlzc wrote:
On Apr 8, 1:32*pm, "Autymn D. C." wrote:

On Apr 8, wrote:
...
Colliding very energetic nucleii. *Already been done
at lower energy levels, and Hawking radiation resulted.
*Search on "dual to black hole".

nuclei, retard

nucleii, 31800 hits

Just because others dick around with the language, doesn't mean you
have to follow them around like a little puppy. *The meaning was
clear.

what around? what meaning? Do you know what a genitive case ending
is?

On Apr 9, 9:21*pm, Benj wrote:
On Apr 9, 8:54 pm, Laurent wrote:

I am starting to think that matter pops up where there is too little
or less dense, as if it were Nature fighting against fragmentation,
giving rise to objects like Seyferts and Quasars where it is less
dense and black holes where there is too much.

There is the "bud" theory of matter, but I used to hang with a
physicist who used to always say that "electrons don't exist"! His
theory *(and it's not a particularly new one) was that electrons
actually ARE the proverbial "true vacuum" of space represented by a
"hole" in the aether. *Matter supposedly works like this. electrons
are vortexes in space that in fact open a "true vacuum" hole and hence
are actually LESS than nothing. The vortex in the aether that creates
this hole actually spews aether out in to the fourth dimension. *That
"wormhole" actually arcs over and comes to rest on a positive charge.
Now protons are NOT vortex "hole" entities, but rather tiny "frozen"
bits of solid aether. *Light and radiation tend to cause them to want

Where are the turtles?

There are not four!, Laurent.

On Apr 12, 8:31*pm, vps137 wrote:
I would agree with your estimation of the eather. The traditional
eather really doesn't need neither in classical physics, no in quantum

doesn't need neither = does[o,t] need either

On Apr 13, 1:15*pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Szczepan Bia3ek:
"Szczepan Bia3ek" wrote in message
...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote
...
Dear Szczepan Bia3ek:
"Szczepan Bia3ek" wrote in message
...
...
Most evidences commonly known prove that
electrons are particles. I do not know even
one that prove that photons exist.

"photoelectric effect".

Earier I wrote:"In optics no photons. There are
the packets. The Newton rings allow us to
calculate how long they are. About 200 wave
lengths.

"photoelectric effect". you can explain with the
packets. *Try the next.

Wave behavior fails to describe the photoelectric effect. *Wave
behavior predicts resonance, and cutoff both above and below
resonance. *This does not occur above resonance in the
photoelectric effect. *Additionally, wave behavior describes
"dispersion", yet the photoelectric effect works for individual
photons emitted from distant stars, and detected one-at-a-time
(like with the VLBA).

You can try next, because you failed this one.

Who said waves must be continval in energy, any more than motes must
be in mass?

wrote:



But geometry is substance.

Geometry is an abstraction that lives inside our brains. if there were
no sentient beings, there would be no geometry.

Bob Kolker

Ralph Hertle wrote:

wrote:
[...]

But geometry is substance.


[...]



Mitch:

Where is a single piece of evidence for what you say, verification in
terms of facts and proper experimental method, published discovery, or
proof.

I'll bring forward an example that is one of the primary definitions
from the science of geometry:

"A point is that which has no part." Euclid, "The Elements", Book 1,
Defn. 1

Was is "a part"? What is "has?

The definition of point as given by Euclide was never ever sued in any
of the proofs. Only the axioms and postulates and a few hidden
assumptions about the objects of geometry were used according to the
principles of logic.

Geometry rests on a set of undefined notions plus assumptions which
provide meaning for the undefined notions.

Bob Kolker