Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits

From: Paul Stowe (ps_at_acompletelyjunkaddress.net)
Date: 07/21/04 

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:59:43 GMT

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 00:37:24 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote:

> "Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
> news:40fd173e$0$297$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...

 [Snip...]

>> 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.
>
> Nope - the energy it has is from Noethers theorem...

 Oh, I see, it's magic, Noether writes a theorem and nature follows
 along. You got the cart before the horse. Noether's theorem is
 a mathematical expression of conservation. It certainly has no
 'energy' of its own. I held this reply off (since I wanted to
 think it over again before posting). Well, today I printed out
 this section and shared it with several collegues at work. One
 (Dr. David Davis) had a one word response, absurd... Other rolled
 their eyes. All thought that to claim something physical springs
 forth from a abstraction (theorem) was, well ... One other commented
 that this was like saying Kragen Auto Parts (on a particular street
 near work) was there because, as any idiot can see, its on the map
 of the town... :)

> applied to the EM lagrangian FuvFuv and its density is E2 + H2/2pi
> (page 75 - Landau - Classical Theory of Fields).

 Ole, as you can see, Bill has NO GRASP of the necessary physicality
 of the processes mapped by these expressions. You simply cannot
 get him to visualize phenomenologically... His mind isn't wired
 for it. Dfferent people simply think differently. I've tried
 everything (asking, pleading, prodding, probing) that I could think
 of to get him to think in physical process terms, it ain't gonna
 happn'...

>> 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,
>
> Since your assertion above is not correct the conclusion you inferred
> is obviously erroneous - even if your logic was correct - which I doubt.

 Go back to Maxwell's work(s) and show us where he was incorrect
 about Maxwell's discription of his theory.

 [snip of rest]

 Paul Stowe

Relevant Pages