Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 07/21/04
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Previous message: Perfectly Innocent: "Re: True Gems of Scientific Epistemology"
- In reply to: Ole D. Rughede: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Next in thread: Phaedrus: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 03:06:33 GMT
"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:40fd173e$0$297$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:sb1Lc.8453$K53.4548@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > news:zNOdnZOS_YPiEmHdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > > news:Wm%Kc.8342$K53.2136@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > >
> > > > "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:WvCdnZt6vvAO5GHdRVn-qA@comcast.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > > news:UEJKc.7253$K53.5623@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:o59mf053tj17iklnhi4bt0elto5hvvm5ie@4ax.com...
> > > > > > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:20:23 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
> > > > > <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in
> > > message
> > > > > > > >news:dpbkf01tfutr6ead3fj2nr7u1vb1g0m3a0@4ax.com...
> > > > > > > >> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:25:06 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
> > > > > <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in
> > > > > message
> > > > > > > >> >news:hfmif0tn9dof3h23u2lgv1baqvr2i10srk@4ax.com...
> > > > > > > >> >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:29:02 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
> > > > > > <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
> > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> >"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote
> > > in
> > > > > message
> > > > > > > >> >> >news:FcjJc.1497$K53.780@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > > > > >> >> >> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> >> in message
> > > > > news:un3Jc.373$K53.4@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip]...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> Has Dayton Miller's experiment been repeated using the
> > > same
> > > > > apparatus
> > > > > > > >>>> with perhaps a modern optical imaging recorder? If not
> > > you
> > > > > have NO
> > > > > > > >>>> valid argument. Data is data interpretation of same is
> > > > > solely a
> > > > > > > >>>> human endeavor. There is a saying, figures never lie,
> > > but
> > > > > liars
> > > > > > > >>>> figure...
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> We have no reason to a-priori suppose that further
> > > > > experiments may
> > > > > > > >>> detect an aether ...
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> By your Platonic 'logic' as long as we 'believe' in our
> > > > > interpretation
> > > > > > > >> we have no reason to do any contrasting experiments.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I did not say we should not do the exprimnets - I leave
> > > such
> > > > > choices to
> > > > > > thos
> > > > > > > > einterested in such. I simply cliam until they are done
> > > and
> > > > > ogve a
> > > > > > postive
> > > > > > > > result nonoe can make the claim the aether has been
> > > detected.
> > > > > Thart is
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > simple logic.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I normally don't comment of typos (in fact I correct some)
> > > but
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > are atrocious.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yada, Yada, Yada.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Regardless of any potentially embarassing results that
> > > were
> > > > > gotten that
> > > > > > > >> contrasted that view. A real scientific perspective here
> > > > > Bill...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Real scientists to not preempt the results of experiments.
> > > I
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > admitted on countless occasions an aether may exist - I do
> > > not
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > it does and understand logic well enough to know that the
> > > fact
> > > > > it has
> > > > > > > > not been detected means it is perfectly acceptable to not
> > > > > believe in it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The problem is not one of detection, but one of accepting
> > > > > evidence of
> > > > > > > detection. There is a very big difference. As has been
> > > > > pointed out,
> > > > > > > if one insists on detecting motion with respect to a
> > > background
> > > > > the CMBR
> > > > > > > fits the bill perfectly! It IS also totally in agreement
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > aether premise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is obvious more than that is required; and is the reason
> > > nearly
> > > > > all
> > > > > > scientists do not accept its existence. They are not fools
> > > > > despite what you
> > > > > > may think.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And certainly enough to know that the belligerent
> > > crackpot
> > > > > assertions
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > Ole D. Rughede that it has been detected
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As I've pointed out before, he isn't the only one being
> > > > > 'belligerent'
> > > > > > > here. You are also... Certainly belligerence is in the
> > > eye of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > beholder.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > An attitude of admitting an aether may exist is one of
> > > tolerance -
> > > > > an
> > > > > > attitude of asserting it must exist based on dubious evidence
> > > is
> > > > > > belligerence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and that the CBMR consisting of EM radiaiton is the aether
> > > is
> > > > > rubbish of
> > > > > > > > the first order.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What, specifically is sound Bill? Take away its basis and
> > > can
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > still have sound??? Thus the question you've dodged twice
> > > now,
> > > > > > > (I'll point it out...).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have never dodged such questions. It is pressure variations
> > > in
> > > > > something
> > > > > > that has been detected - air. Take away air and you have no
> > > > > sound. OTOH EM
> > > > > > waves are waves of EM fields which are nothing like a material
> > > > > medium such
> > > > > > as air.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now we are talking!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Take away EM fields and you have no EM radiation.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Take away Einstein's aether and you have no EM fields.
> > > >
> > > > EM fields obey Maxwell's equations. Your proof they imply the
> > > existence of
> > > > an aether is eagerly awaited.
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > >
> > >
> > > EM fields obey Nature's laws. There are several working theories
> > > that describe EM field behavior, all mathematically correct. There
> > > even are non-working theories which are also mathematically correct.
> > >
> > > I have no material proof, nobody does, but its reality can be
> > > deduced by logic. For example, an aether is the only logical way to
> > > satisfactory explain action at a distance and quantum non-locality.
> >
> > Such is obviously false as the existance of theories in full accord with
> > exprimnet that do not assume it proves.
> >
> > > How else can you logically explain the EPR experiment results or the
> > > Schroedinger's cat paradox? How about inertia?
> > >
> >
> > Both EPR and the Schrodingers cat paradox are explainable by a number of
> > means - none of which require an aether. My favorite is quantum state
> > dissuasion at the plank time scale - see
> > http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2001/HPL-2001-7.pdf. Another
> possibility
> > is that objective reality does not exist - all that exists is the result
> of
> > observations - that immediately cuts the assumptions of Bells inequality
> > right from underneath it ie observables do not have values until they
are
> > observed in which case there is nothing to be non local or collapse -
see
> > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/. But in your case you
> > probably do not even know what assumptions went into its proof. As is
> usual
> > cranks confuse their ignorance of physical theories with how nature
works.
> >
> > Bill
>
> Bill, You have not the faintest idea about what you are
> talking about. Try and understand the references you
> sling around to stiffen your tottering intellect!
>
> It is assumed in Maxwell's theory that a volume in which
> the field is different from zero contains a certain amount
> of energy U and momentum. The density of momentum
> is assumed to be 1/c^2 times the energy passing through
> unit area per unit time. Therefore the universal space of
> free EM-energy is for short called *Aether*, and the
> first theoretical attempts to evaluate the energy and
> temperature of the aether dates back to 1948-50, when
> Gamov, Alpher and Herman estimated T to about 50 K,
> which was in no way verified, neither by the findings of
> Penzias and Wilson, nor from COBE results interpreted
> by Mather et al. who I gave the first correct theoretical
> deduction of T(Aether) = T(CMBR) = 2.692064 K,
> well within the errors of the experimental result, even
> before the final interpretation.
>
> The present empirical result is now belived to be some-
> where between 2.7249 and 2.7251 K from the most
> delicate experimental finesse. Not astonishing a little
> higher than the theoretical value masked by our local
> higher aether density in cosmic space.
>
> From my theoretical result I have been able to obtain
> the most precise theoretical value of Newtonian G ever
> seen, a physical quantity which is extremely difficult to
> measure by experiment. - But how these results were
> found and by which validity of theoretical consideration
> has not been of least interest to you. You simply believe
> you already have the stones of wisdom from skating
> the internet and a little bit study here and there, including
> a course in ...communication!
>
> Your bad scientific attitudes and general lack of manners
> is exorbitantly demonstrated in your postings.
>
> You are not even able to distinguish between consistent
> scientific theories and utterly mad delusionary conclusions
> based on the misinterpretations of empiric results to fit
> what you call "theory" but is nothing but wild speculations
> adapted to unexpected experimental evidence presented
> horribly insane as selfverificating "predictions".
>
> You have no scientific training in research or experimental
> work and your logic reach the level of an uneducated child
> unaware of the differences between objective, normative,
> and subjective statements. You probably not even know
> that true conclusions may result from false premisses but
> can be shown to be logically false arguing. Your use of the
> word "poof" indicates you have no knowledge whatsoever
> about Gödel's scientific work but believe science is some
> thing like "proving" undergaduate math, QED.
>
> Your lack of critical sense prevents you from seriously
> evaluating scientific proposals and arguments and make
> you believe whatever you think are scientific facts to be
> parrotted like religious mantras.
>
> Therefore it has no meaning to discuss with you, which
> you are well aware of, why you fall back to pumping noise,
> naughtiness and obscenity you call "typos" into your
> disorderly postings as rubbish of higher orders.
>
> Find a better pastime and a more cultured approach to
> people you would like communicate with. You are no
> pretty ornament to the news groups with your shameful
> belligerent style and childish slander, not to speak of your
> "quantum state dissuasion at the plank time scale" ??? !!!]
I gave a reference http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2001/HPL-2001-7.pdf to
the work of a legitimate scientist - Ian Percival - to back up my assertion.
If it was not obvious by 'dissuasion' I meant 'diffusion' it would have been
obvious to anyone who actually took time to look at the link rather than
pass comment on my typo and accuse me of 'childish slander' an other such
rubbish. If he was actually interested in science, which with every word he
writes it is increasingly obvious he is not, he would have discussed the
ideas therein. With each an every word he simply confirms Franz Heymans
assessment:
'All those words, and no physics, when all the while, Rughede was on the
list (of crackpots) for all to see. Not for simple ignorance, but for
erroneous and audacious arrogance.'
Again Franz - well said.
Bill
>
> Good Max Planck would turn in his grave crying Hobba
> to hell instead of Archimedian heureca, dissuading you to
> ever touch physics science and quantum mechanics.
>
> Ole
>
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Laurent
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Wave in a medium are the result of the physical
> > > > > characteristics
> > > > > > > of the medium. Do you agree or disagree?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Talk about faulty logic, sheez...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It might be a good idea to detail the error in logic rather
> > > than
> > > > > allude to
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bill
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> ... and conversely that it may not - but that is a far
> > > cry
> > > > > from saying
> > > > > > > >>> an aether has been detected. ...
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> And a far cry from exclaiming it has not...
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> For that to be claimed Millers experiments would have
> > > had to
> > > > > give an
> > > > > > > >>> unequivocal positive result.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> What IS an "unequivocal positive result"? I cannot
> > > think of
> > > > > anything
> > > > > > > >> that, done only once, could not be challenged on several
> > > > > grounds, such
> > > > > > > >> as experimenter bias, experimenter incompetence, bad
> > > setup,
> > > > > unknown
> > > > > > > >> systematic error, ... etc.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> It did not do that - it gave a result that could be
> > > > > interpreted as
> > > > > > > >>> evidence of an aether but could be explained by other
> > > means.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Name these...
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Until experiments have been conducted that definitively
> > > show
> > > > > an aether
> > > > > > > >>> then logic allows me, an anyone else with a brain, to
> > > say we
> > > > > have no
> > > > > > > >>> definite evidence of the existence of an aether.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Faulty logic. As long as there exist any experimental
> > > > > ambiguity one
> > > > > > > >> logically cannot exclude that possibility. But then
> > > again,
> > > > > you were
> > > > > > > >> never strong in the logic category.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> And do not retort with what would count as evidence -
> > > > > obviously the
> > > > > > > >>> same type as evidence we have for the existence of atoms
> > > ie
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > >>> experiment whose only reasonable interpretation is an
> > > aether
> > > > > just like
> > > > > > > >>> the only reasonable interpretation of Brownian motions
> > > was
> > > > > the
> > > > > > existence
> > > > > > > >>> of atoms. Millers experiments were not conclusive -
> > > simple
> > > > > as that.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> ... Since many other experiments gave an unequivocal
> > > null
> > > > > results
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> They do? Show me the data... Not interpretations. I
> > > > > think you'll
> > > > > > > >>>> find that the data in almost all was NOT pure null!
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Hmmm, the cat got you tongue on this one, eh?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>>> ... and only one experiment ...
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> only one? What about Silvertooth, Torr & Kolen, Roland
> > > > > DeWitte, ...
> > > > > > > >>>> etc?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> ??? ONLY ONE Bill...
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>>> gave a result that may indicate the existence of an
> > > > > aether, and may
> > > > > > > >>>>> not as well, logic forces the conclusion that it has
> > > not
> > > > > been found.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Remind me NOT to ask you for logical analyses of
> > > anything
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>>> importance.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> This is examined here
> > > > > http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/12/2.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Yeah an you won't follow that reference's advice.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> However the original poster stated in support of the
> > > > > existence of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>> aether: 'The existense is confirmed by measuring the
> > > > > temperature of
> > > > > > > >>>>> the aether, T(CMBR), meaning the temperature of the
> > > Cosmic
> > > > > Microwave
> > > > > > > >>>>> Background Radiation, which is about 2.7 °K. It
> > > therefore
> > > > > cannot be
> > > > > > > >>>>> maintained that the aether never has been detected or
> > > > > experimentally
> > > > > > > >>>>> proved'. Of course the CBMR consists of EM radiation
> > > and
> > > > > EM
> > > > > > radiation
> > > > > > > >>>>> is what the aether is purported to carry as waves - it
> > > is
> > > > > obviously
> > > > > > > >>>>> absurd to propose the waves of a medium is the medium.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Wave in a medium are the result of the physical
> > > > > characteristics of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> medium. Do you agree or disagree? For example, use of
> > > > > passive
> > > > > > sonar.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here it is (as if you hadn't noticed)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Well Bill, this was NOT a difficult question... Do you
> > > agree
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > >> disagree?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Either way you answer, you're screwed, and you know it...
> > > > > Thus the
> > > > > > > >> dodge.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>>> But I have noticed Mr Ole D. Rughede is quite fond of
> > > > > belligerently
> > > > > > > >>>>> stating
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Oh, if only he had the monopoly on 'belligerently
> > > > > stating'... PKB
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >>>> And, I am in this regard, not immune from this
> > > practice.
> > > > > In fact,
> > > > > > > >>>> the general behavior here encourages this.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> ... outlandish incoherent rubbish as if it was truth
> > > > > beyond question
> > > > > > > >>>>> then gets quite upset when posters respond he should
> > > do
> > > > > something
> > > > > > > >>>>> about his obviously deficient reasoning ability.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Again, no one is immune and you've done your own
> > > share.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Paul Stowe
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Previous message: Perfectly Innocent: "Re: True Gems of Scientific Epistemology"
- In reply to: Ole D. Rughede: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Next in thread: Phaedrus: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
