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.

David A. Smith

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

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...
|
| "Androcles"
|
| What a shame.
| http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp...fect/photo.htm
| Doesn't surprise me that you don't know, though.
|
| Photoelectric effect snipped

Can't you read?
This was YOUR stupid argument:
Most evidences commonly known prove that photons are particles.
I do not know even one that prove that aethers exist.

You have to snip to ignore it, though, don't you, BIGOT!
A*

On Apr 9, 7:41*pm, wrote:
On Apr 9, 4:08*pm, Laurent wrote:

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.

The substance is geometry.


Bob Kolker

gravitation is caused space flowing
into matter. Space flow

--
Laurent

Timeless acceleration

wrote:
On Apr 9, 7:41 pm, wrote:
On Apr 9, 4:08 pm, Laurent wrote:

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.

The substance is geometry.


Bob Kolker

[....]



Mitch:

All gravity is physical, and it is a property only of physically
existing entities. There is no gravity that is not physical existents.

In the philosophy of science everything that exists is physical. There
is nothing that is not physical. Everything that is, or that has the
property of being, is physical.

In physics the concepts that identify the things, properties and
relationships are physical. In the philosophy of science that identifies
the widest concepts of the universe, e.g., those of physics, the type of
concept to be used is metaphysics.

In mathematics the concepts that identify the relationships and
measurement principles are those of ideas. In the philosophy of science
that which identifies the widest concepts of the relationships of
particular things of universe, e.g., those of number, geometry,
functions, addition, logic, or the principles of relationships, are the
concepts of epistemology.

Substance is to metaphysics as geometry is to epistemology.

All physical things in the universe exist independently of ideas

However, just as physical things are not ideas, so metaphysics is not
epistemology.

Also, therefore, substance is not geometry.

Bob Kolker says that, "Gravity is curvature of the spacetime manifold.
It is not a substance." He could have said, and I take the liberty to
edit what he said for the sake of argument [without his permission or
agreement], that, ""Gravity is the identification of the accelerations,
motions and locations of matter given a certain as yet not completely
identified and yet partially known and measured principle of physical
causation that is identified and measured in the terms and principles of
the mathematical concept of the curvature of the mathematical-physical
concept of the spacetime manifold [of the mass field relationships of
physical existents]. [Mathematically speaking], gravity is not a
substance.''

That's a long way to say something. Grammatically, it should be broken
down into a logical relationship structure of shorter sentences.

Physical existents are not mathematics concepts.

BTW, is your argument path that of Plato, wherein he says that all
ideas, while only approximately knowable, exist as ideals within the
world of forms [Platonic defn. of form.] of which material objects are made?

Aristotle, in contrast, says that ideas are identifications of the
substance and properties of physically existent entities.

He also says that ideas also may identify the principles and properties
of other ideas.

No way are things ideas.



Ralph Hertle

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

"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message
...

|
| Bob Kolker says that, "Gravity is curvature of the spacetime manifold.

Kolker is a crank.

On Apr 13, 6:46*pm, Ralph Hertle wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 9, 7:41 pm, wrote:
On Apr 9, 4:08 pm, Laurent wrote:

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..

The substance is geometry.

Bob Kolker

[....]

Mitch:

All gravity is physical, and it is a property only of physically
existing entities. There is no gravity that is not physical existents.

In the philosophy of science everything that exists is physical. There
is nothing that is not physical. Everything that is, or that has the
property of being, is physical.

In physics the concepts that identify the things, properties and
relationships are physical. In the philosophy of science that identifies
the widest concepts of the universe, e.g., those of physics, the type of
concept to be used is metaphysics.

In mathematics the concepts that identify the relationships and
measurement principles are those of ideas. In the philosophy of science
that which identifies the widest concepts of the relationships of
particular things of universe, e.g., those of number, geometry,
functions, addition, logic, or the principles of relationships, are the
concepts of epistemology.

Substance is to metaphysics as geometry is to epistemology.

All physical things in the universe exist independently of ideas

However, just as physical things are not ideas, so metaphysics is not
epistemology.

Also, therefore, substance is not geometry.

But geometry is substance.



Bob Kolker says that, "Gravity is curvature of the spacetime manifold.
It is not a substance." He could have said, and I take the liberty to
edit what he said for the sake of argument [without his permission or
agreement], that, ""Gravity is the identification of the accelerations,
motions and locations of matter given a certain as yet not completely
identified and yet partially known and measured principle of physical
causation that is identified and measured in the terms and principles of
the mathematical concept of the curvature of the mathematical-physical
concept of the spacetime manifold [of the mass field relationships of
physical existents]. [Mathematically speaking], gravity is not a
substance.''

That's a long way to say something. Grammatically, it should be broken
down into a logical relationship structure of shorter sentences.

Physical existents are not mathematics concepts.

BTW, is your argument path that of Plato, wherein he says that all
ideas, while only approximately knowable, exist as ideals within the
world of forms [Platonic defn. of form.] of which material objects are made?

Aristotle, in contrast, says that ideas are identifications of the
substance and properties of physically existent entities.

He also says that ideas also may identify the principles and properties
of other ideas.

No way are things ideas.

Ralph Hertle

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

The concept "that", in that context, means a scientific concept, or
"magnitude", in the Ancient Greek sense of meaning. That is a
scientific, especially a geometric concept.

The idea that it "has no part" means that it is not a physical existent,
and that it is an epistemological existent or idea.

The corollary to the above definition that was in use prior to Euclid is:

"A point is that which has location only."

A point has no substance. In the Pythagorean XYZ coordinate system
(later rediscovered by Descartes) a point was the idea of a specific
location, one that could be given number in the sense of distances or
lengths from the XYZ planes or lines. The Parthenon was built having
untold thousands of geometric intersections and measurement points. So
were the Apollo Mission space vehicles.

A point is a concept of a certain type of idea in a system of geometry,
e.g., that of Euclid.

If a point were to have substance, just what substance would that be,
and what properties would it have?


Ralph Hertle

..

"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.

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.
S*

"FrediFizzx" wrote in message
...
"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. 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."

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.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

Let me try ( I have a really hard time getting the concept in the head to be
understandable on the page) to explain why our seeming direct observation of
the universe is skewed be the intrinsic bias of us , and every tool we use,
being made of the matter that was converted out of the QP of the BB.

First I start from the position that there WAS a BB , this is a position
solely based on my agreement with COBE and other observation platforms that
seem to show expansion from a starting point and relative uniform back
ground microwave radiation. Many I have tried to explain my postulate too
first jump in and state that there was no BB so from that point the
explanation will always fail.

Consider what was the "Stuff" of the BB.. I have dubbed is a Quantum Point
.... This seems to be the best term of description I can conger and here's
why.

I conceive it as a Quantum of energy of an indefinable content. indefinable
because before time 0 it is void of any matter and as such it cannot be
defined by any physical rules as all physical rules only apply to matter in
relation to other matter. Eisenstein generally proved that matter Can be
converted into energy and energy back into matter so this Quantum point can
be converted into matter.

We are here speaking of it so it by logic must have done so.

So the QP must follow some rule and the only one that can apply would be
Probability. I see it as having the probability to convert none, very
little, some or all of that energy into matter.

Take the mental exercise of a 1oz cube of matter. it has a finite mass, a
finite 3 dim structure and exist in a finite point in space/time. If I were
able to completely convert that matter into energy without any other matter
in relation to it, it would have to be considered as an infinite amount of
energy. Because there is no physical rules that can be applied it will
always model as infinite and chaotic.

So while we try to define the QP of the BB we always fail and all rules of
physics fail. That failure causes us to conceptualize infinity.

Now lets say the QP actually had a finite amount of Unified Indefinable
Energy. It converts a portion of that energy into matter. The concept I see
is that it only converted a portion into matter and anti-matter . That begs
the question of what the remaining Unified Indefinable Energy is and how it
permeates the universe.

Now if I follow that admittly nebulous abstract concept I must recognize
that I, You, and every particle in the universe exist within that remaining
energy. That leads me to envision that the remaining Unified Indefinable
Energy of the QP still exist and is only spread out as the matter is
propelled by the early conversions of the converted matter as it is
converted into various forms of Physical Energies such as kinetic, L/H nuke
ect. as matter and anti-matter run into each other early on.

I could explain that better if needed but its just a prolog to what we are
speaking.

Now, We have real little physical balls of stuff after this inflation period
and I think they are connected via the remaining Unified Indefinable Energy
left over from the BB. Since these SPP's (Smallest Physical Particles) were
converted and blasted by the BB they are set to ringing and this ringing
produces a EM wave which propagates between every other SPP. You cannot ever
know what that wave form is actually because every SPP produces a EM wave
and if I were a SPP trying to observe another SPP all I observe is the
Heterodyne wave of my own wave form and all other SPP's.

So that is where I get the concept of Intrinsic Bias. When we dig up ore to
smelt the metals to build the devices we use to observe we, without knowing
it, are picking materials that have Intrinsic Bias. We are connected to the
device which is connected to the subject of our observation.

So how does this fit with the standard model ? It actually seems to fit
pretty well. And in my mind actually simplifies the universe. It also allows
a Unified view that cannot be obtained by physical laws.

At the same time it allows existing physical rules to remain intact for the
most part. But it explains a few points that fly in the face of existing
laws. Because we live within the Box so to speak we cannot model or observe
the box itself. That's the intrinsic bias.

If I look at a Quark and Gluon I actually cannot observe them as the waves
of all SPP's locally heterodyne, including the EM waves produced by the
devices used to observe and the observer. This bias causes me to model
discreet objects where they may be only waves observed at a fixed point in
space/time. Even if the SPP's were large as compared to say what we observe
as sub-atomic physical particles we would only observe the waves , which may
seem to have physical properties, due to the intrinsic bias of us being
formed of SPP's and producing EM waves.

This ,to me, seems to fit the observed universe and even makes a prediction.
I wrote back in 1989 that if I were correct the Universe would expand in an
ever increasing rate of expansion. I stand by that prediction. It also
predicts that the velocity of c and the value of G are variables, But
because of our intrinsic bias position within the QP ( I dub it the Quantum
State (QS) once matter was converted) we can only observe G and c as
constants. We will never be able to detect a gravitational wave as the wave
varies because we vary, any device we try to use varies and in order to
observe the wave we would have to observe it from outside the box. Take a
ruler and measure a cube, if the cube got bigger at the same rate the ruler
got bigger we could never know that the cube got bigger unless we had
something external that we knew stayed the same size.

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.

This also says that the value of c varies as SPP's become dense due to this
variance of universal G and local g . But the variance would be only
observable to an observer inside the QS as a constant at any fixed point.

So following this logic I state that all discreet particles that display the
aspect of duality's are only waves and appear as little balls of stuff due
to the intrinsic position of the observer and that of the wave being
observed.

Because of this bias we have to make complicated constructs to make sense of
what we observe. We make multi dimensions, strings and a host of models to
reflect what we think is going on.

Using this idea I conclude there are only 3 spacial dim's and 1 ethereal.
The reason for the value of c to seem to be effected by local mediums is not
due to absorbsion and re-emission, but due to the local value of the QS
being far greater in a local frame. This would (I think) give the same
mathematical model as absorbsion and re-emission if we modeled the variance
between the SPP's at the same rate as we model the absorbsion and
re-emission construct.

Now I admit to being a novice but to me this simplifies the universe and
eliminates the mental constructs of Duality, Infinity and constants explains
the causation of gravity and explains why we cannot using existing rules
find causes for magnetism and gravity without assuming new and exotic little
balls of stuff in our models.

Now I have asked for folks to poke holes into this idea for many years and
yet to find a rational argument against it that cannot be addressed but
since it deals with the state between physicals without regard to them it
will always be a unverifiable construct with the possibility of one aspect
being able to experimentally test. Static electrical charge across a high
state dielectric may ( pure conjecture) alter the local value of the QS on a
very local scale. This could cause the device to alter its relative mass in
relation to all other matter in the universe. If a device can produce a high
enough electrostatic stress field its relative mass may be variable.

Then again these are just the ramblings of an engineer and we all know how
much credence are given engineers in the halls of science....

"vps137" wrote in message
...
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.


Lets start from the beginning and that is what was the BB.. Einstein's
pretty much nailed it when he explained that matter can be converted into
energy and energy could be converted into matter... So what was the Energy
of the BB before any of it was converted into matter. Well a writer Alun
Williams dubbed it a chaos Point (CP) in that energy without matter would be
infinitely chaotic and indefinable.

I have always refereed to it as a Quantum Point and would follow at least
one rule and that was Probability . Other than that the energy of the BB
before time 0 is non definable as there is no matter hence no laws of
physics can apply.

We have as a Quantum Point (QP) an amount of Unified Energy of a
unquantifiable amount and indefinable nature.

My postulate states that according to Probability that QP had the
probability of converting from none to all of its energy into matter or not.
That conversion could have been from one particle of matter to a billion
billion universes of matter. My contention is that all of the Energy of the
QP need not be converted, only a small portion was converted at time 0 into
the matter we perceive as the universe around us.

The remaining energy exists all around us and is still indefinable. While we
can finely define matter in relation to other matter the energy between
matter is still undefinable. We give it constant values as we can measure it
and model it between any two massive objects so we seek the Grand Unified
Theory to explain the observed which we have yet to define. Gravity is well
modeled and we can calculate to the Nth degree what its effect is on massive
bodies we still can't define the cause of effect over distance of
gravitational
fields.

Lets try to get past the inherent Bias of the observer to better understand
the concepts to follow. The Bias is Intrinsic in that after time 0 the
matter throughout the universe is connected by the remainder of the energy
of the QP when it converted some of its undefinable energy into definable
matter. So the Bias stems from every item used to measure or observe the
universe is connected to that being observed and the data gathered is Biased
to the observer. This Bias causes us to observe what seems to be a particle
with a material nature but actually be only energy signatures of waves
measured at a specific time with tools that are connected to that which they
observe.

Lets consider converting a known amount of matter into energy completely in
that there is 1X1X1 cube of matter and we magically find a way to convert
all of that matter into energy you would have a QP (Quantum Point, Chaos
Point, Singularity) that occupied no space an since it contains no matter it
cannot be defined physically. It would have infinite energy density even
though it was converted from a finite amount of matter.

In our thought experiment we have a Quantum of Energy and we convert 2
Smallest Physical Particle (SPP) out of it. The remainder of the energy
exists as a field between those two particles. There is a massive energy
release at the conversion of matter from energy. My contention is that
converted from that Energy is a form of matter that I call a SSP or Smallest
Physical Partical an that the energy release causes these SSP's to ring and
produce a EM wave. It also causes the particles to move away from the point
of origin. Note that the particles could be matter or antimatter in any
ratios as per probibility that would rules the QP before time 0.

With 2 SSP's produced as they move away from each other the Universe exists
between those two SSP's. That Field has a value and we can define it once we
have 2 physical particles moving in relation to each other.

Now Lets add 1 additional particle.. only this particle is Anti-Matter. Its
still connected to the other 2 particles via the Quantum State (QS) But if
it runs into one of those other particles they vanish into a flash of energy
and the single particle would collapse the universe into it. If there was
several +SSP's and 1 -SSP's you would have a large energy release as the 2
particles annihilate each other which would propel the remaining +SSP's away
from each other at a higher rate.

This follows the standard theory of a short inflation period followed by the
expansion period of the Big Bang Theory. At Time 0 the QP converted some of
its undefinable energy into Matter in the form of +SSP's and -SSP's and that
shortly after conversion +SSP's and -SSP's annihilated each other causing
the remaining +SSP's to expand at a higher rate.

Now we have lots of SSP'S in a group. They are connected to each other via
the Quantum State which is the same undefined unified energy that was the
Quantum Point (QP) the EM waves interact between each SSP. The EM Waves
heterodyne and interact causing a type of natural selection in that some
SSPs are producing EM Waves that combine with some other SSP's and cause
them to stabilize into bound groups and others have EM wave forms that cause
them to separate further from some SSP's so over time you have groups of
SSP's that as a group produce a EM Wave that is a unified as a heterodyne
wave form. then these groups can become harmonically connected to other
groups and so on.

This QS (Quantum State) between particles has a variable that has been
dubbed the Universal Constant or the Gravitational Constant. I Know
...Constant Variable? These are the values we call constants as we can
measure and model matter and these values remain constant. I contend that
they are variable in that due to scale and the intrinsic bias of being
within the Quantum State we will always measure and validate them as
constants as we vary at the same rate.

In my view the Gravitational Constant of the Universe varies with the
expansion of the universe but is locally modified by groupings of SSP's.
This also applies to the value of c (The Speed Of Light). I contend that c
is a variable but varies on a scale as to be measured as a constant. Again
locally varied by local groupings of SSP's. The Quantum State acts as an
Inverse Tensor Field between all SSP's on a universal scale. It has a Strong
attraction which we measure as gravitational or magnetic or nuclear force
effects aspects of separation distance of SSP's. These forces are but
effects of heterodyne waves of groupings of SSP's and the value of the QS
varies with the distribution of SSP's both universally and locally. We have
modeled Photons taking centuries to escape from the lower sun to the surface
and theorize that photons are absorbed by matter and re emitted causing the
long trip . But in my postulate the value of c in reduced locally between
closely grouped SSP's versus widely separated SSP's. So in the dense sun the
wave form we consider a photon travels at a slower speed locally and faster
once it exits the mass of the sun.

Paul R. Mays