On Apr 9, 7:13 pm, Laurent wrote:
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


Empty space does indeed exist. Yes, it is a physical thing.

Bob says it's not a substance. This is true according to the standard
model.

But in my opinion it is not merely a substance, it is the _only_
substance which exists. There is only 1 element in my periodic chart -
and it's symbol is D for Dimension.

Traditionally, space is an empty place where substances are found
floating around. Substances are composed of energy and space is not.

I disagree with that view, and it is the basis of my kookery.

The only way to make sense of the universe is to model randomness as
if it were a fluid embedded in length. Expected values vary, which
results in different "expected lengths", causing compressions and
rarefactions of length itself.

You do not need the concept of energy at all. All you need is
dimension. And by modulating the amount and distribution of randomness
embedded in that length one can easily bend space any way you like.
The dynamics can be as complicated as you wish.


The question I'm wrestling with is whether mathematics is
determined or not. I always thought that it must be, but now I am
beginning to believe that the question as to whether mathematics is
determined or not cannot be answered. I believe it is indeterminate.
It seems that mathematical relationships are out there regardless
of man, and we simply discover them as we go along. But here is a
question to consider. We cannot really prove that randomness exists.
So, is probability theory "valid" ? Knowing that it is based on the
premise that randomness exists ? And if randomness does not exist,
then probability theory is really just an interesting looking
contraption which has no actual validity because it is based on a
false premise, namely the existence of randomness. But if randomness
does indeed exist, then probability theory is validated.
So - we go back for a moment to the question of whether mathematics
is itself in some sense "determined". There is a fork in the road.
Either probability theory is mathematical fact, or it is not. I dont
think that there is an absolute answer, because we cannot answer
whether randomness exists or not. We cannot know whether probability
theory would neccesarily be included or excluded from a
"deterministic" mathematics - even if we are to contemplate an
ehaustive hypothetical structure where every possible theorem and
lemma has been completely and exhaustively pieced together in some
hypothetical logical superstructure i.e. a "completed" mathematics.

Seems there are some things which "cannot" be answered conclusively.

On 5 Apr, 13:01, "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

It ain't necessarily so! Sit down, you're rocking the boat!
Some things get easier with it; some, Bell's Theorem,
start and stop ridiculous!
--
'foolsrushin.'

On Apr 9, 6:13 pm, Laurent wrote:
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...

Whatever; no since haggling over a name.

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?

The quantum "vacuum" as a relativistic medium would not be a void but
exists in the void of empty space. Not necessarily an "immaterial
substance" either. But also not matter.

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.

Not necessarily. What if the quantum "vacuum" (aether) is composed of
quanta in some kind of a neutral configuration?

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

"Benj" wrote in message
...
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.

Only a half-hole.

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.

No. It's a gauge situtation. Matter (or anti-matter) is less than what
the configuration of the quantum "vacuum" (aether) is. But not less
than nothing. That would just be plain silly. IOW, we are riding on a
tremendous "sea" of positive energy but we can't tell. Thus the gauge
situation. We can only measure changes in energy. It is a possible
simple explanation for how gravity works. Since matter is less than
what the configuration of the ether is, there is less pressure between
two matter objects so they are attracted to one another. Now, the trick
is to get this pressure concept to work for charged particle attraction
AND repulsion.

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
to expand back up to a gaseous state but the aether supplied by the
electron's "wormholes" stabilizes the Proton and hence one gets what
we see as matter with a reasonable degree of stability. "Atomic"
energy is actually simply the energy represented by the mass of the
proton expanding back to a gaseous state. You can see that
electrostatic "coulomb" forces are actually due to the elasticity of
the aether-transporting wormhole in the 4th dimension.

That's it.

Now you have gone out of whack. ;-)

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

On Apr 9, 11:35 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
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.


What is really the substance of your statement ?
Are you saying that there are locations where EM fields are ill-
defined?
Are you saying there are locations where E=B=0?
Are you defining a physical substance as something which is
baryonic?

All these could be valid points, but in simply saying "I don't like
this word" you are denying yourself the benefit of expressing whatever
idea is behind your dislike.

Fields, yes. No aether.


Forgive me for not being compelled by this argument.
What is it really about the word you dislike?


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.


How many legs does the tour de france have?
How has this has to do with electromagnetic fields?

Thanks for your reply and best regards - lukas

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

wrote in message
...
| On Apr 9, 11:35 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
| 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.
|
|
| What is really the substance of your statement ?
| Are you saying that there are locations where EM fields are ill-
| defined?
| Are you saying there are locations where E=B=0?
| Are you defining a physical substance as something which is
| baryonic?
|
| All these could be valid points, but in simply saying "I don't like
| this word" you are denying yourself the benefit of expressing whatever
| idea is behind your dislike.
|
| Fields, yes. No aether.
|
|
| Forgive me for not being compelled by this argument.
| What is it really about the word you dislike?
|
|
| 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.
|
|
| How many legs does the tour de france have?
| How has this has to do with electromagnetic fields?
|
| Thanks for your reply and best regards - lukas

Trees are substance on which apples grow. No tree, no apple.
Forgive me for not being compelled by this argument, I saw
apples in the grocery store.
There are no trees in the tour de france.

What is it really about the word "tree" you dislike?

On 10 ÁÐÒ, 10:21, 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
to expand back up to a gaseous state but the aether supplied by the
electron's "wormholes" stabilizes the Proton and hence one gets what
we see as matter with a reasonable degree of stability. "Atomic"
energy is actually simply the energy represented by the mass of the
proton expanding back to a gaseous state. You can see that
electrostatic "coulomb" forces are actually due to the elasticity of
the aether-transporting wormhole in the 4th dimension.

That's it.

Yes, your friend is right. When we are talking about the aether, in
the first place we must determine what does it mean. Maybe we are
looking for it in the wrong places.
Talking about observability of the aether, we must ask ourselves
whether only it is observable and all other objects including us
ourselves are only its singularities and made up from it.
The same we are to say about space. What is the space we are living
in? Is it 3D as we can observe or maybe it has more dimension? From
the answer all depends. The 3D space is perambulated up and down by
coryphaei, so it is need to go further.
As for SR, it has been already shown as the first step that there is
another approach to the Lorentz transformation without peculiar
postulates,length contraction and time dilation. One needs just to add
one spatial dimension to our visual space. Then some consequencies
about all the nature including particles and galaxies represented by
vorteces (not in the very space, but in some medium situated in
space) can be made.
Look into vps137.narod.ru/physics.html.

On Apr 10, 2:58*am, "FrediFizzx" wrote:
On Apr 9, 6:13 pm, Laurent wrote:





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...

Whatever; no since haggling over a name.

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?

The quantum "vacuum" as a relativistic medium would not be a void but
exists in the void of empty space. *Not necessarily an "immaterial
substance" either. *But also not matter.

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.

Not necessarily. *What if the quantum "vacuum" (aether) is composed of
quanta in some kind of a neutral configuration?

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator *sci.physics.foundations- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Aether is before the CMBR also.

--
Laurent

On Apr 9, 9:34*pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Laurent wrote:

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

It predicts accurately and has never been falsified. That is all that
matters. There is no why. There is only what, when and how.

Bob Kolker

Predicting is not the same as explaining.

--
Laurent

On Apr 9, 9:36*pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Laurent wrote:

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.

Gravitation obeys different laws from electrodynamics. *Gravitational
fields gravitate. Electromagentic fields have no charge.

Leon Rosenfeld (1933, 1963) considered:

G_uv = 8pi(T^uv)psi

Where PSI is the quantum state of the matter fields and:

*Gravitation is the beginning of a semi-deterministic process. The
gravitational force is a product of the electromagnetic properties of
the medium, and is a classical, non-quantized phenomena.

*Gravity and wave packet collapse are interrelated. There is state-
wave collapse because there is gravity, gravity being the product of
electromotive forces generated within matter.

*Gravitation is caused by a space pressure differential created by the
inward, radial space flow that occurs as a result of the object's
state-wave continuous collapsation.

*Quantization and organization of space is orchestrated by matter
fields (pilot-waves) which originate from and follow exclusive
dimensions (information) already existing as matter (particles).

If there were no wave collapse there would be no matter, simple as
that. Stopping or reversing gravity would require the stopping or
reversing of the state-wave flow, and that would cause matter to
disintegrate. All matter is wave and particle at the same time (de
Broglie, et al.), that is why there is gravity. So lets stop wasting
time on anti-gravity devices and lets concentrate on creating a
spacetime bubble in a different matrix and completely independent from
our space. A bubble which could be extracted from and reintroduced
into the time-cone at will.



And there is no aether. Anything explained by aether can be exaplained
without aether and it has never, ever been detected or measured. Ever.

Bob Kolker