On Oct 26, 1:27 pm, Laurent wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:52 am, PD wrote:





On Oct 25, 8:55 pm, Laurent wrote:

Is empty space real? Yes.

Does it exist? No. It isn't matter, therefore can't exist... yet, it
is.

Can it be measured? No, since it isn't matter, it is unmeasurable.

It is empty because it is immaterial, but has physical qualities.

This is where language and preconceived ideas get in the way.
Apparently, you have in your head that only material things can be
said to physically exist.
And yet something that is not a material thing has physical
(measurable) properties.
This immediately leads to an apparent paradox. The common resolution
to this paradox is to insist that space must in fact be a material
thing, so that it can have measurable properties.
It hasn't occurred to you, apparently, that your premises are wrong,
and that the paradox is only an illusion fabricated from erroneous
premises.

PD

Being and existing are not synonymous. Being is not the same as
existing. To be, you don't need to be in a specific location, to
exist, you do.

That seems like a rather odd statement, especially since existence and
being are not carefully redefined physics terms, and so the dictionary
terms will suffice, and I'm pretty sure you will find existence in the
definition of "be" and being in the definition of "being".

Furthermore, fields and waves and and extended entities are understood
to have existence in physics, but they don't have specific locations.
A field exists *everywhere*. Does the Earth's atmosphere exist? Where
is its specific location?

PD

On Oct 26, 4:00 pm, PD wrote:
On Oct 26, 1:27 pm, Laurent wrote:





On Oct 26, 9:52 am, PD wrote:

On Oct 25, 8:55 pm, Laurent wrote:

Is empty space real? Yes.

Does it exist? No. It isn't matter, therefore can't exist... yet, it
is.

Can it be measured? No, since it isn't matter, it is unmeasurable.

It is empty because it is immaterial, but has physical qualities.

This is where language and preconceived ideas get in the way.
Apparently, you have in your head that only material things can be
said to physically exist.
And yet something that is not a material thing has physical
(measurable) properties.
This immediately leads to an apparent paradox. The common resolution
to this paradox is to insist that space must in fact be a material
thing, so that it can have measurable properties.
It hasn't occurred to you, apparently, that your premises are wrong,
and that the paradox is only an illusion fabricated from erroneous
premises.

PD

Being and existing are not synonymous. Being is not the same as
existing. To be, you don't need to be in a specific location, to
exist, you do.

That seems like a rather odd statement, especially since existence and
being are not carefully redefined physics terms, and so the dictionary
terms will suffice, and I'm pretty sure you will find existence in the
definition of "be" and being in the definition of "being".

I agree, those terms need clarification. That's what I'm doing,
clarifying things. Or not?


Furthermore, fields and waves and and extended entities are understood
to have existence in physics, but they don't have specific locations.
A field exists *everywhere*. Does the Earth's atmosphere exist? Where
is its specific location?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fields are made of particles which move according to lines of force
determined at the aether level, therefore are matter. What is not
matter are the lines of force or the aether were they come from.

The Earth's atmosphere is located around it.

On Oct 26, 3:50 pm, Laurent wrote:
On Oct 26, 4:00 pm, PD wrote:





On Oct 26, 1:27 pm, Laurent wrote:

On Oct 26, 9:52 am, PD wrote:

On Oct 25, 8:55 pm, Laurent wrote:

Is empty space real? Yes.

Does it exist? No. It isn't matter, therefore can't exist... yet, it
is.

Can it be measured? No, since it isn't matter, it is unmeasurable.

It is empty because it is immaterial, but has physical qualities.

This is where language and preconceived ideas get in the way.
Apparently, you have in your head that only material things can be
said to physically exist.
And yet something that is not a material thing has physical
(measurable) properties.
This immediately leads to an apparent paradox. The common resolution
to this paradox is to insist that space must in fact be a material
thing, so that it can have measurable properties.
It hasn't occurred to you, apparently, that your premises are wrong,
and that the paradox is only an illusion fabricated from erroneous
premises.

PD

Being and existing are not synonymous. Being is not the same as
existing. To be, you don't need to be in a specific location, to
exist, you do.

That seems like a rather odd statement, especially since existence and
being are not carefully redefined physics terms, and so the dictionary
terms will suffice, and I'm pretty sure you will find existence in the
definition of "be" and being in the definition of "being".

I agree, those terms need clarification. That's what I'm doing,
clarifying things. Or not?

Dunno yet. Doesn't seem clear to me at all yet.




Furthermore, fields and waves and and extended entities are understood
to have existence in physics, but they don't have specific locations.
A field exists *everywhere*. Does the Earth's atmosphere exist? Where
is its specific location?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fields are made of particles

Not that have a definite location, no.

which move according to lines of force

No, they don't. Double-slit experiment rules that out.

determined at the aether level, therefore are matter. What is not
matter are the lines of force or the aether were they come from.

The Earth's atmosphere is located around it.

And what are the coordinates (the location) of "around it"? Or
alternatively, where are the boundaries between which you are certain
the atmosphere lies?

PD

On Oct 26, 6:02 pm, PD wrote:
On Oct 26, 3:50 pm, Laurent wrote:





On Oct 26, 4:00 pm, PD wrote:

On Oct 26, 1:27 pm, Laurent wrote:

On Oct 26, 9:52 am, PD wrote:

On Oct 25, 8:55 pm, Laurent wrote:

Is empty space real? Yes.

Does it exist? No. It isn't matter, therefore can't exist... yet, it
is.

Can it be measured? No, since it isn't matter, it is unmeasurable.

It is empty because it is immaterial, but has physical qualities.

This is where language and preconceived ideas get in the way.
Apparently, you have in your head that only material things can be
said to physically exist.
And yet something that is not a material thing has physical
(measurable) properties.
This immediately leads to an apparent paradox. The common resolution
to this paradox is to insist that space must in fact be a material
thing, so that it can have measurable properties.
It hasn't occurred to you, apparently, that your premises are wrong,
and that the paradox is only an illusion fabricated from erroneous
premises.

PD

Being and existing are not synonymous. Being is not the same as
existing. To be, you don't need to be in a specific location, to
exist, you do.

That seems like a rather odd statement, especially since existence and
being are not carefully redefined physics terms, and so the dictionary
terms will suffice, and I'm pretty sure you will find existence in the
definition of "be" and being in the definition of "being".

I agree, those terms need clarification. That's what I'm doing,
clarifying things. Or not?

Dunno yet. Doesn't seem clear to me at all yet.



Furthermore, fields and waves and and extended entities are understood
to have existence in physics, but they don't have specific locations.
A field exists *everywhere*. Does the Earth's atmosphere exist? Where
is its specific location?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fields are made of particles

Not that have a definite location, no.

Fields have definite locations. You can determine where a given field
is.


which move according to lines of force

No, they don't. Double-slit experiment rules that out.

All particles in a field follow lines of force. If there were no lines
of force there wouldn't be any fields.


determined at the aether level, therefore are matter. What is not
matter are the lines of force or the aether were they come from.

The Earth's atmosphere is located around it.

And what are the coordinates (the location) of "around it"? Or
alternatively, where are the boundaries between which you are certain
the atmosphere lies?

It is a gas, but it is not in Mars, it is on Earth.


PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Mdmeenken" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" schreef in bericht
...

"Laurent" wrote in message
ps.com...
Is empty space real? Yes.

Does it exist? No. It isn't matter, therefore can't exist... yet, it
is.

Love isn't matter yet exists. Ideas aren't matter yet exist. You need
to learn what exists means. A good start is a dictionary ' Exist - to
have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found;
occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world'


Can it be measured? No, since it isn't matter, it is unmeasurable.


IQ, force, data redundancy etc etc - all sorts of things that aren't
matter can be measured.

well Bill,

all nice and good,
but how is it,that something what is not matter, bend,as spactime close to
mass,

The same reason that something that is not matter - namely Euclidian
geometry, taught to 11-12 year olds hear in Australia, causes the angles of
material triangles made out of paper to add up to 180%. I remember cutting
them out in grade 7 and seeing them form a line i.e. add to 180%. It is
amazing that 11 year olds grasp the obvious that seem to escape some adults.
Or maybe they were asleep at school, but nevertheless feel educated enough
to post supposedly serious questions, couched as a snide comment, whose
answer in blindingly obvious to those who were not asleep. That is assuming
the question was actually 'serious' - which I doubt.

I don't really know,

Start by first by understanding what a mathematical model is. That is after
you have grasped the basics of Euclidian geometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model

Bill


marten

Rest snipped.

Bill

"Laurent" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 25, 10:37 pm, "Bill Hobba" wrote:
"Laurent" wrote in message

ps.com...

Is empty space real? Yes.

Does it exist? No. It isn't matter, therefore can't exist... yet, it
is.

Love isn't matter yet exists. Ideas aren't matter yet exist. You need
to
learn what exists means. A good start is a dictionary ' Exist - to have
being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur:
Hunger exists in many parts of the world'

No. To exist you need to be in a given location. Being and existing
are not synonymous.

Not according to a dictionary. I suggest you study one prior to posting in
the future.

Bill





Can it be measured? No, since it isn't matter, it is unmeasurable.

IQ, force, data redundancy etc etc - all sorts of things that aren't
matter
can be measured.

They can be calculated. But you can't say - Hey! hand me some of that
data redundancy and a ruler to measure it - can you?


Rest snipped.

Bill

"Bill Hobba" schreef in bericht
...

"Mdmeenken" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" schreef in bericht
...

"Laurent" wrote in message
ps.com...
Is empty space real? Yes.

Does it exist? No. It isn't matter, therefore can't exist... yet, it
is.

Love isn't matter yet exists. Ideas aren't matter yet exist. You need
to learn what exists means. A good start is a dictionary ' Exist - to
have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found;
occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world'


Can it be measured? No, since it isn't matter, it is unmeasurable.


IQ, force, data redundancy etc etc - all sorts of things that aren't
matter can be measured.

well Bill,

all nice and good,
but how is it,that something what is not matter, bend,as spactime close
to mass,

The same reason that something that is not matter - namely Euclidian
geometry, taught to 11-12 year olds hear in Australia, causes the angles
of material triangles made out of paper to add up to 180%. I remember
cutting them out in grade 7 and seeing them form a line i.e. add to 180%.
It is amazing that 11 year olds grasp the obvious that seem to escape some
adults. Or maybe they were asleep at school, but nevertheless feel
educated enough to post supposedly serious questions, couched as a snide
comment, whose answer in blindingly obvious to those who were not asleep.
That is assuming the question was actually 'serious' - which I doubt.

is it now aussie logic ,or arrogance?,

anyway, hardly sufficient as a proper answer,
probably you have none,

einstein was a great man
but he knew very well the difference between a theorie and the real thing,
i.e.,the difference between math and physics,
his theory is the best so far,and it stands every test so far ,and it is
logical,

Newton said once ,that he still did'nt understand how it is, that the moon
was attracted,
by the earth over such a distance,
and he added, that he hoped that one time there would come somebody in the
future,
who could explain that,
that man came and was einstein,and newton would have liked his theory ,I am
sure ,
because it is brilliant,

but does it answer all the questions,I am afraid , no,

marten








I don't really know,

Start by first by understanding what a mathematical model is. That is
after you have grasped the basics of Euclidian geometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model

Bill


marten

Rest snipped.

Bill

On Oct 27, 1:33 am, "Bill Hobba" wrote:
"Laurent" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Oct 25, 10:37 pm, "Bill Hobba" wrote:
"Laurent" wrote in message

oups.com...

Is empty space real? Yes.

Does it exist? No. It isn't matter, therefore can't exist... yet, it
is.

Love isn't matter yet exists. Ideas aren't matter yet exist. You need
to
learn what exists means. A good start is a dictionary ' Exist - to have
being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur:
Hunger exists in many parts of the world'

No. To exist you need to be in a given location. Being and existing
are not synonymous.

Not according to a dictionary. I suggest you study one prior to posting in
the future.

Bill





Can it be measured? No, since it isn't matter, it is unmeasurable.

IQ, force, data redundancy etc etc - all sorts of things that aren't
matter
can be measured.

They can be calculated. But you can't say - Hey! hand me some of that
data redundancy and a ruler to measure it - can you?

Rest snipped.

Bill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can be without existing but you can't exist without being.

--
Laurent

On Oct 26, 8:12 pm, Laurent wrote:
On Oct 26, 6:02 pm, PD wrote:



On Oct 26, 3:50 pm, Laurent wrote:

On Oct 26, 4:00 pm, PD wrote:

On Oct 26, 1:27 pm, Laurent wrote:

On Oct 26, 9:52 am, PD wrote:

On Oct 25, 8:55 pm, Laurent wrote:

Is empty space real? Yes.

Does it exist? No. It isn't matter, therefore can't exist... yet, it
is.

Can it be measured? No, since it isn't matter, it is unmeasurable.

It is empty because it is immaterial, but has physical qualities.

This is where language and preconceived ideas get in the way.
Apparently, you have in your head that only material things can be
said to physically exist.
And yet something that is not a material thing has physical
(measurable) properties.
This immediately leads to an apparent paradox. The common resolution
to this paradox is to insist that space must in fact be a material
thing, so that it can have measurable properties.
It hasn't occurred to you, apparently, that your premises are wrong,
and that the paradox is only an illusion fabricated from erroneous
premises.

PD

Being and existing are not synonymous. Being is not the same as
existing. To be, you don't need to be in a specific location, to
exist, you do.

That seems like a rather odd statement, especially since existence and
being are not carefully redefined physics terms, and so the dictionary
terms will suffice, and I'm pretty sure you will find existence in the
definition of "be" and being in the definition of "being".

I agree, those terms need clarification. That's what I'm doing,
clarifying things. Or not?

Dunno yet. Doesn't seem clear to me at all yet.

Furthermore, fields and waves and and extended entities are understood
to have existence in physics, but they don't have specific locations.
A field exists *everywhere*. Does the Earth's atmosphere exist? Where
is its specific location?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fields are made of particles

Not that have a definite location, no.

Fields have definite locations. You can determine where a given field
is.

Really? Where is the field, definitely, around a charged ping-pong
ball?




which move according to lines of force

No, they don't. Double-slit experiment rules that out.

All particles in a field follow lines of force. If there were no lines
of force there wouldn't be any fields.

Sorry, your assertion is based apparently on misunderstanding. Fields
are real things. Lines of force are drawing exercises.



determined at the aether level, therefore are matter. What is not
matter are the lines of force or the aether were they come from.

The Earth's atmosphere is located around it.

And what are the coordinates (the location) of "around it"? Or
alternatively, where are the boundaries between which you are certain
the atmosphere lies?

It is a gas, but it is not in Mars, it is on Earth.


Didn't answer the question. You see how hard it is to specify the
location of the atmosphere? Is "not around Mars, but instead around
Earth" close enough to a "definite location" for you? What does
"definite location" mean to you?

PD

Harald wrote:

"Aether drag" certainly is *not* part of Einstein's ether!

Nor is anything else. Repeatedly attempting to project your
worldviews on a dead man is silly. Here is a book giving
Einstein's perspective looking back at his career.

http://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_...ical_notes.htm

Search it in vain for "Einstein's ether", but do note what it
says about the physicality of spacetime. Sorry about that!


---Tim Shuba---