Re: Why does light do what it does?

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 07/05/04 

Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 05:16:13 GMT

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ks143F5i0naU1@uni-berlin.de...
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:Ii3Gc.78778$sj4.61047@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> |
> | "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:2krnrnF5csvfU1@uni-berlin.de...
> | > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> | > news:np1Gc.78678$sj4.72948@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> | > |
> | > | "Bill664" <bill664@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | news:1b6ebc64.0407040840.6df5186@posting.google.com...
> | > | > Bilge:
> | > | >
> | > | > Many, many thanks for the very full and very helpful post below
> which
> | > | > was spot on for me in terms of the level it was pitched at.
> | > | >
> | > | > The main thing I got from it was that SR stands on its own,
> | > | > independent from theories of light and the nuclear forces. [And
> | > | > thanks to Bill Hobba for pointing me to a derivation of the
Lorentz
> | > | > transformations from the POR alone.]
> | > |
> | > | And this is a point most if not all the cranks that post around here
> | fail
> | > to
> | > | grasp. You now understand its true nature. The next thing to do is
> | think
> | > | carefully about the derivation I linked you to - it is in fact more
> | > complex
> | > | than it needs to be due to the level it is pitched at eg the proof
> | > linearity
> | > | can be considerably simplified. But don't worry about it too much -
> as
> | > your
> | > | knowledge and understanding of math and physics grows things will
> become
> | > | clearer and clearer until you reach the point where you understand
the
> | > true
> | > | basis of SR - symmetry - and will recognize how ugly ideas like the
> | aether
> | > | really are.
> | >
> | > Oh brother! How ugly is it that the fact that matter exists to the
> | > principle of symmetry? You definitely need to think more fundamental.
> | > Relativity is very nearly correct for its domain of applicability but
it
> | > does not rule out the quantum vacuum. Please read Volovik and become
> more
> | > enlightened.
> |
> | Freddi - many have reached the same conclusion I have. I have read your
> | paper and it PROVES nothing - it simply is another theretical proposal.
> We
> | have tons of those eg Ilja GLET - time will tell how well it pans out
just
> | like time will tell how well the ideas of supestring thery or any other
> | theory pans out.
>
> You read *my* paper or Volovik's? D

How about a little undersanting of context? By your paper I meant the paper
you have given me a link to - and yes I have read it.

> Did you read any of "The Universe in a
> Helium Droplet" yet?
> His correlations of superfluids (from experimental
> investigations) with symmetry principles is much different than what you
> propose. The hammer is dropping, and you will miss the "new physics".

Freddi have his theores been definittely proven yet? Assert the above when
they have - not before.

>
> | >
> | > The geometry of spacetime has to have an explanation.
> | >
> |
> | There is nothing a-priori that requires that.
>
> Hmmm... geometry comes from "nothingness" I suppose. ;-)

No it comes, like all science, from the postulates of the theory it is based
on.

>
> | > Do you really think
> | > that real matter being only 4 percent of the total Universe can
explain
> | the
> | > geometry of spacetime? What the heck is the other 96 percent?
> | >
> |
> | So? The possible existence of dark matter can be explained in many
ways.
> | In STM, one of my favorite theories (a non aether theory BTW) it is
> | explanted as solitons in 5d. Does that make STM correct - nope. Does
it
> | show its explanation does not a-priori require an aether - yep.
>
> What about dark energy?

Dark energy is the hypothesized source of the mystery of why the unversed
expansion is accelerating. That too has a lovely explanation in STM - see
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0304/0304093.pdf. Now I do not think
that STM is 'the' theory - it is just a theory I like. However it does
indicate we have zero definitive evidence the world works along your
hypothesized lines - the answers are up in the air at present.

>
> | >
> | > My advice to Bill664 is to learn all the standard stuff but keep in
your
> | > mind that there is much more. A particular geometry exists for a
> reason.
> | > It is not "just because".
> |
> | My advice to Bill664 is to understand the foundation of science is test,
> | hypothesize, test, hypothesize over and over. All hypothesis contain
> | assumptions - it is purely a matter of personnell preference what
> | assumptions you like or dislike. As the paper I linked to proved the
key
> | assumption of SR is the POR - light really has very little to do with
it.
> | You were able to reach that conclusion yourself. My bias towards
symmetry
> | is my and many others opinion, but others have a different biases such
as
> | Freddi - in science such is not really important - correspondence with
> | experiment is. However I believe the more acquainted you become with
the
> | ideas of physics the more you will realize symmetry is the correct
> | foundation just like the correct foundation for SR is the POR (a
symmetry
> | principle BTW) and not light. But do not take my word for it, do not
take
> | Freddi's word for it, commence the journey yourself and form you own
> | opinion.
>
> Yes, that is best advice. Learn it all and decide which "interpretations"
> you like best. Just remember this; the Universe is necessarily defined by
> all the quantum objects in it. Especially the quantum objects that
comprise
> the quantum vacuum.

The word 'Especially' used here is a value judgment - no different than my
value judgment about symmetry that Freddi took exception to.

> For in the quantum vacuum lies the other 96 percent of
> the Universe's total energy. And it is what "powers" the so-called
> self-energy of quantum objects that make real matter.

That is pure conjecture.

Thanks
Bill