On Apr 8, 7:12*am, dlzc wrote:
Dear Autymn D. C.:

On Apr 8, 1:14*am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:



On Apr 6, 9:48*am, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
"Benj" wrote in message

....

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

Well, provided it doesn't open a black hole
and the earth gets sucked into it...

Let us hope Hawking was right, then. *That
way, if we do manage to make a classical
black hole out of a few nucleii, it will entirely
evaporate in a tiny super hot fireball in
fractions of a second.

nuclei
Well, how do they make a classic black hole
if black holes are relativistic?

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

nuclei, retard
And you said this wasn't a classic black hole--of course it's neither,
and not even. As I said, it's a dark star of a (not the) limitant
pionic [collapsar] nucleus. You wouldn't call a quark star a black
hole. Hm, as it's a pionic soliton, I wonder if my
http://google.com/groups?q=Planck-charge is a elèctronic soliton.

-Aut

On Apr 5, 4:03*am, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Laurent wrote:
But the gravitational aether can be felt.

Gravity is curvature of the spacetime manifold. It is not a substance.

Bob Kolker

Wrong. Geomtery is the substance of space dimension. Period.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

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.

David A. Smith

On Apr 2, 10:14 am, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Benj wrote:

Oh great. Two kooks arguing "religion"!

Hey Bob, Once again, Saying that Aether has never been observed is a
lie. Empty space has PROPERTIES therefore, aether has been observed!
How about you keep your religion in church? The failure was not to
observe Aether but rather a failure to observe Aether Drift! Quite a
different matter.

Aether, according to Maxwell is super stiff space filling goo that is so
rare it does not slow planets down in their orbits. Maxwell did not
believe space was aether. Neither did Michelson nor Morley.

Aether is an unnecessary and useless concept. Which is why it has been
largely dropped from physics. It has suffered the same fate as
phlogiston, caloric, electric fluid and vital essence.

Bob Kolker


Those concepts did not disappear, they became better understood and
renamed. Now, we have Oxygen, heat, electrons, and metabolism.

Similarly the aether is still with us, only you must now use words
such as "electromagnetic field", "space-time", or even "quantum
foam".

I won't repeat the 1920s Einstein quote you know so well about how the
aether does exist.

The word needs to be avoided when possible in publications now.
However nobody will deny that in empty space there exists:

An electromagnetic field, a gravitational field (g_uv if you like).

Whether you like to consider this as "substance", "aether" or
something else is up to you.


Cheers - lukas

wrote:
Those concepts did not disappear, they became better understood and
renamed. Now, we have Oxygen, heat, electrons, and metabolism.

Similarly the aether is still with us, only you must now use words
such as "electromagnetic field", "space-time", or even "quantum
foam".

I won't repeat the 1920s Einstein quote you know so well about how the
aether does exist.

The word needs to be avoided when possible in publications now.
However nobody will deny that in empty space there exists:

An electromagnetic field, a gravitational field (g_uv if you like).

Whether you like to consider this as "substance", "aether" or
something else is up to you.


Also, we have are two current diametrically-opposed models of physics
telling us two things. We're told that Relativity disproves the Aether,
but Einstein himself only said that it only removes the need to consider
it in calculations, not that it doesn't exist. Meanwhile, we have the
Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics happily telling us that space must
be composed of something (i.e. there are absolute reference frames in
QM), which might as well be the Aether.

The old model of the solid Æther may be dead, but a fluid æther seems to
be emerging. Even in cosmology, there's the new theory that combines
Dark Matter with Dark Energy which is being called Dark Fluid. Dark
Fluid by any other name is aether.

Yousuf Khan

wrote:

Those concepts did not disappear, they became better understood and
renamed. Now, we have Oxygen, heat, electrons, and metabolism.

Similarly the aether is still with us, only you must now use words
such as "electromagnetic field", "space-time", or even "quantum
foam".

EM fields are NOT space filling substances. They are not substances.

Fields, yes. No aether.

If you call a tail a leg how many legs does a dog have?

Answer: 4. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.

Bob Kolker

On Apr 5, 8:01*am, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Laurent wrote:

Explain particle pair creation without aether or any energy sources.
Isn't there a law against that in your text book? *

Read any book on the Standard Model for that.

There is no aether.

Bob Kolker


The Standard Model has no real explanation, just like it can't explain
gravity, inertia nor action-at-a-distance.

Particles come to existence as required by spacetime conditions, but
what do they feed from, where do they get their energy from?

Once a particle forms it needs to continuosly reset its structure
according to spacetime conditions. It can't exist independently from
spacetime. The Billiard Ball model is obsolete and so is the Standard
Model.

--
Laurent

On Apr 5, 8:03*am, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Laurent wrote:
But the gravitational aether can be felt.

Gravity is curvature of the spacetime manifold. It is not a substance.

Bob Kolker

No, space is material (grainy) and gravitation is caused space flowing
into matter. Space flow being caused by electromotive forces. Space
curvature is caused by matter in space, space being an extension of
matter. Matter and space are one and the same thing.

--
Laurent

On Apr 5, 8:03*am, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Laurent wrote:

Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits.

Empty space is not a substance.

Bob Kolker

Empty space is immaterial, it does not exist but it can act on matter,
therefore, it is physical. That makes it a thing, or... a substance.
Einstein was right.

--
Laurent

On Apr 5, 11:28*am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Laurent:

"Laurent" wrote in message

...
On Apr 1, 10:23 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:

Dear leonmau

wrote in message

...
...

Where did the light particles come from?

They are quantum exchange particles between
two charged particles.
Explain particle pair creation without aether or
any energy sources. *Isn't there a law against
that in your text book? *

Without "energy sources"? *Where did that idiocy come from?
Explanations without aether are simple a straightforward.

Then, tell us where does that energy comes from? Give us your simple
and straightforward explanation.


...

When they move. What do they move through?

The Universe in Maxwell, and they don't move
through anything in QM.
Right, space is an extension of matter.

.. and energy. *But only in classical theories. *In QM, space is
nonsequitur... so far.

In QM space is grainy. Empty space is not. Empty space has the same
properties of a point, it is dimensionless.


Einstein said,

He died in 1955. There is no religion with His
name on it.
Right, but he was a Pantheist.

Says nothing about where Science has gone since 1915 or so...

"Light is pure energy" and "Energy is space in
motion." Therefore, a light particle has be
composed of energy waves.

No.
Light is wave and particle, it's called photons or
quanta.

These labels you attach to light are a function of the model used
to describe them in relation to the system you define. *

Oh, so what labels do you attach to light?

You say
something about the butcher's thumb, and not the meat on the
scale.

Relativity theory says they have to be
something substantial. Q.E.D.

No. In fact, it says they cannot have any
substance at all.
That depends on what your definition of a
substance is.

In aether, light is "ripples in"... no substance inherent to
light there either.

That's in 19th century aethers. In Einstein's GTR the aether does not
exist, that's why he says the Universe in background free.


No matter what you call it,
it's still aether, or empty (of form) space.

There is no empty space.
Right, just like there are no point particles.

Who said that? *Electrons and photons... there is no collision
where "bumpers" meet, where new unique particles resolve.

The Billiard Ball model is obsolete. Particles have a volume, a
diameter, therefore, can't be considered to be points. The points in a
line a not real, neither are the lines. Those are mathematical
objects.


So, the MMX proved nothing.

It disproved an aether that was unique to
light alone.
It proved they didn't understand the nature of
the aether.

You don't either. *Will you be droll about your own
misconceptions too, as you are about people that died ~100 years
ago?

Since the aether is the root of all earthly
matter

Impossible to prove.
The proof is that we are here.

Fails.

There can be aether without fields but there
can be no fields without aether.

Yes, there can be. *There is no empty space, and what "waves"
with the passage of light is *us*.

Aether is empty space and fields are shapes
drawn by matter as process (spacetime) takes
place. *Matter and space are one and the same
autopoietic process.

Word salad. *

To you.

And we again come full circle.

In a diffraction experiment, any finite geometry yields non-zero
diffraction. *Both the diffracted particle and the slit
"material" are expressed across each bit of "empty" space.
Subtract that effect out, and the need for an aether ceases to
be.

What?


David A. Smith