On Apr 10, 1:03*am, Huang wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Mathematics are just a tool and randomness is as real as matter is.

--
Laurent

On Apr 10, 11:28*pm, Laurent wrote:
On Apr 10, 1:03*am, Huang wrote:





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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mathematics are just a tool and randomness is as real as matter is.

--
Laurent- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Randomness is as real as matter ?

More like Santa or the Easter Bunny. It's reality depends on your
naivete'.

On 11 ÁÐÒ, 00:09, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"vps137"

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.

Do not you know that in 1925 Michelson and Gale detected the movement of the
Earth?
S*

Yes, I know. I can refer to the scrupulous analysis of the MMX made by
Bryant:
Revisiting the Michelson and Morly experiment to reveal an Earth
orbital
velocity of 30 kilometers per second. http://www.relativitychallenge.com/papers.html

But the most of the society don't take into account it and guess that
MMX
and MGX gives null result. My estimation (vps137.narod,ru/
article5a.html)
seems to be in accordance with society. Because the effect is the
second
order of v/c, it demands the length of the arms of the
interferrometer
to be above hundred of kilometers. Moreover, such experiment would be
better
to do in outer space. Then maybe it can fix the effect wrt CMBR with
shorter
arms length.

Valery S.

U"vps137" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 11 ÁÐÒ, 00:09, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Do not you know that in 1925 Michelson and Gale detected the movement of
the Earth?

Yes, I know.
But the most of the society don't take into account it and guess that MMX
and MGX gives null result.

So you know that the MMX and MGX gives the same result (0.46 km/s for the
equator) because at noon and at midnight they measure the same.
Do you know that the star aberration, MMX and MGX are evidences that the
Solar System is a rotating disc?
S*

On 11 апр, 14:02, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
U"vps137" napisal w ...
On 11 ��Ò, 00:09, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



Do not you know that in 1925 Michelson and Gale detected the movement of
the Earth?
Yes, I know.

But the most of the society don't take into account it and guess that MMX
and MGX gives null result.

So you know that the MMX and MGX gives the same result (0.46 km/s for the
equator) because at noon and at midnight they measure the same.
Do you know that the star aberration, MMX and MGX are evidences that the
Solar System is a rotating disc?
S*

Yes, I saw different values of MMX, from 30 to 8.4 km/s. (f.e. Consoli
& Costanzo,
2003). While the most said it is far below the accuracy and set it to
zero.
About Solar System rotation I have been never heard, but it is in
full correspondence
with my picture of the star and galaxy formation, published in
vps137.narod.ru/article3a.html.
The solid body rotation of the our galaxy seems to fix already as
well. It extends up to 5 times more
then the radius of galaxy.
Valery S.

On Apr 11, 6:03Â*am, vps137 wrote:
On 11 апр, 14:02, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:





U"vps137" napisal w ...
On 11 ��Ò, 00:09, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Do not you know that in 1925 Michelson and Gale detected the movement of
the Â*Earth?
Yes, I know.

But the most of the society don't take into account it and guess that MMX
and MGX gives null result.

So you know that the MMX and MGX gives the same result (0.46 km/s for the
equator) because at noon and at midnight they measure the same.
Do you know that the star aberration, MMX and MGX are evidences that the
Solar System is a rotating disc?
S*

Yes, I saw different values of MMX, from 30 to 8.4 km/s. (f.e. Consoli
& Costanzo,
2003). While the most said it is far below the accuracy and set it to
zero.
About Solar System rotation I have been never Â*heard, but it is in
full correspondence
with my picture of the star and galaxy formation, published in
vps137.narod.ru/article3a.html.
The solid body rotation of Â*the our galaxy seems to fix already as
well. It extends up to 5 times more
then the radius of galaxy.
Valery S.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are two schools of thought; one says the Aether is immaterial,
the other sees it as a dynamic fluid, or particulate in nature... like
matter.

These days space is seen as grainy, but space and empty space are two
different things. Leading cosmologists picture the universe as a
bubble floating in empty space. This is where Alan Guth's 'false
vacuum' comes from. Like Einstein said, there is no absolute space,
space is an extension of matter. Space is not primary, nor
fundamental, it does not exist by itself, it is a product, just as
matter and time are products. Space is dynamic, it fluctuates, it
tells matter where to go and matter tells it how to curve. Empty
space, on the other hand, is primary. See, there is empty space then
there is material space, a mix of ZPR and CMBR particles. Einstein's
spacetime is packed-full of photons, that is where Inflation, the Big
Bang, etc., all come from.

Aether and matter are two different things and if you were to stop the
motion within matter it would go back to being just flat empty
space... or Aether.

You can not call this vortex an Aether particle, as if the Aether had
turned into something else. The Aether is supposed to be immutable and
eternal, the vortex is simply an artifact, an apparition of sorts, it
does not matter how small a particle may be. It could be 10^-58 cm
(the so-called Kolmogorov particle), still, when you reduce yourself
to the size of that particle what do you get? More empty space. The
field is not the ultimate irreducible reality. Aether and fields are
two different things. The Aether was before there were photons... or
quanta... or information.

There are fields because of these qualities of the Aether, which are
administered or directed at the Aether level. Rules followed by
fields, not by the Aether. The Aether acts like a traffic light
directing energy flows as self-organization takes place. The Aether
tells fields how to behave. It holds and imparts the laws that matter
follows as it organizes itself through a process similar to the
process cell automata follow, where a system can reach great
complexity as it follows a small set of rules, these rules being the
four fundamental forces of Nature.

The Aether itself is not observable, you can not say - here, lets take
a look at this chunk of Aether! - because it is immaterial. Real but
not in spacetime, hence, not directly observable. This is why the MMX
(the Michelson-Morley experiment) failed so miserably. But you can
measure its effects; things like inertia, gravity, magnetism,
electricity... etc.

From the MMX results, we should conclude that the Aether is immaterial
and directly unobservable. Now, if there was an empty space,
independently from the universe, before there was matter, is it not
the classical vacuum immaterial and directly unobservable too? Can we
take a direct measurement of something which is not matter? The only
thing proven by the MMX was that they did not 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
any object... that is Aether caused drag!

--
Laurent

"vps137" wrote
...
On 11 ???, 14:02, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

So you know that the MMX and MGX gives the same result (0.46 km/s for the
equator) because at noon and at midnight they measure the same.
Do you know that the star aberration, MMX and MGX are evidences that the
Solar System is a rotating disc?
S*

About Solar System rotation I have been never heard,

It is Descartes theory. It was commonly accepted to time when the
polarization of light was discovered. From this time the eather becomes a
solid body.
Michelson proved that the eather travel with the Earth around the Sun. In
1925 he proved that the Earth rotae in the eather. As I have said before
this and aberration of stars defintely prove that the Solar System is a
rotatin disc. It was obvious already because the Earth has no tail (like
commets) and the upper winds are from West.
Now we know that all waves have the transversal and longitudinal components.
S*

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

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...
|
| "vps137" wrote
| ...
| On 11 ???, 14:02, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
|
| So you know that the MMX and MGX gives the same result (0.46 km/s for
the
| equator) because at noon and at midnight they measure the same.
| Do you know that the star aberration, MMX and MGX are evidences that the
| Solar System is a rotating disc?
| S*
|
| About Solar System rotation I have been never heard,
|
| It is Descartes theory. It was commonly accepted to time when the
| polarization of light was discovered. From this time the eather becomes a
| solid body.
| Michelson proved that the eather travel with the Earth around the Sun. In
| 1925 he proved that the Earth rotae in the eather. As I have said before
| this and aberration of stars defintely prove that the Solar System is a
| rotatin disc. It was obvious already because the Earth has no tail (like
| commets) and the upper winds are from West.
| Now we know that all waves have the transversal and longitudinal
components.
| S*

Michelson proved there was no aether.
In 1913 Sagnac proved it again and definitely proved the velocities of
photons
add to the velocity of the source even though it is obvious anyway.
Now we all know you are a crank.
A*

On Apr 12, 6:44 am, "Androcles" wrote:

Michelson proved there was no aether.

Proved no such thing.

In 1913 Sagnac proved it again and definitely proved the velocities of
photons
add to the velocity of the source even though it is obvious anyway.

Velocity of source is added to the velocity of light and it's
"obvious". Gosh, then how is it that the speed of light always
measures c in all reference frames?

Now we all know you are a crank.
A*

Say I'll bet you are one of those internet guys who is smarter than
Einstein!

"Androcles"

Michelson proved there was no aether.
In 1913 Sagnac proved it again and definitely proved the velocities of
photons add to the velocity of the source even though it is obvious
anyway.

In optics no photons. There are the packets. The Newton rings allow us to
calculate how long they are. About 200 wave lengths.
S*