Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 07/23/04
- Next message: Double-A: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- In reply to: Laurent: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Next in thread: Laurent: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 02:31:41 GMT
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:toidnVR7C-etaGLdRVn-rA@comcast.com...
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:yhKLc.10990$K53.2683@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > news:fdWdnXq7qLyBt2LdRVn-rA@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > > news:nTELc.10718$K53.6673@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > >
> > > > "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:Jv6dnZvU3OeEEGPdRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > > news:celLc.9665$K53.1162@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:AfGdnYdE94wDI2DdRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=physics-holism
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When you can translate the above philosophical
> gibberish
> > > into
> > > > > > > understandable
> > > > > > > > English we may have something to discuss. In the mean
> > > time,
> > > > > since
> > > > > > > your a
> > > > > > > > philosophy type dude trying to masquerade as wanting
> to
> > > discus
> > > > > > > physics,
> > > > > > > > familiarize yourself with Wittgenstein's Tractatus
> > > > > > > Logico-Philosophicus
> > > > > > > > http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/tlph.html and it
> > > conclusion
> > > > > > > 'Whereof one
> > > > > > > > cannot speak, thereof one must be silent'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bill.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's what I call a cop-out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it now? If you believe otherwise then please elaborate
> > > (using
> > > > > plain
> > > > > > English and not philosophical mumbo jumbo) the meaning of
> the
> > > > > first sentence
> > > > > > of your quote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'Classical physics presents no clear examples of either
> > > physical
> > > > > property
> > > > > > holism or nonseparability'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In particular give a precise definition of what you mean
> by
> > > > > 'physical
> > > > > > property holism' (with clear examples) and
> 'nonseparability'
> > > > > (again with
> > > > > > clear examples).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you up to it or are you still at the stage of 'Whereof
> one
> > > > > cannot speak,
> > > > > > thereof one must be silent' but are not keeping silent?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I say your the one coping out, hoping to cover your lack
> of
> > > > > physical
> > > > > > understanding by recourse to philosophical mumbo jumbo
> that
> > > even
> > > > > you do not
> > > > > > understand.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bill
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is spacetime primary? by Basil Hiley (1999)
> > > > >
> > > > > I first came across this possibility from a lecture by
> Geoffrey
> > > Chew
> > > > > (1960). He pointed out that there is no necessity to start
> an
> > > > > explanation of quantum processes in space-time.
> Complementarity
> > > > > shows that we could either start in space-time, or we could
> have
> > > > > started in the energy-momentum plane, but we can never start
> > > with
> > > > > both together.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is actually an old idea stressed by Bohr (1925) in the
> > > early
> > > > > days of quantum mechanics. He writes -
> > > > >
> > > > > "I am quite prepared that the view we proposed
> > > (Bohr-Kramers-Slater
> > > > > theory) on the independence of the quantum process in
> > > > > widely-separated atoms should turn out to be incorrect...
> the
> > > > > Ramsauer's results on the penetration of slow electrons
> through
> > > > > atoms, presents difficulties for our ordinary space-time
> > > description
> > > > > of nature similar to those presented by a simultaneous
> > > understanding
> > > > > of interference phenomena and a coupling through radiation
> of
> > > the
> > > > > changes of state of widely-separated atoms. I believe that
> these
> > > > > difficulties so thoroughly rule out the retention of the
> > > ordinary
> > > > > space-time description of phenomena."
> > > > >
> > > > > Chew (1960) brought this idea out in a new and striking way
> by
> > > > > drawing attention to the S-matrix approach to high-energy
> > > processes.
> > > > > Here the energy-momentum plane is taken as basic so that we
> can
> > > > > exploit strict energy and momentum conservation. But then
> the
> > > role
> > > > > of the spacetime manifold has to be derived since it can no
> > > longer
> > > > > be regarded as basic. This brings us to the question of the
> role
> > > of
> > > > > space-time itself. Why is it regarded as
> > > > > primary and basic?
> > > > >
> > > > > When we come to consider the problems of quantising gravity
> > > while
> > > > > retaining general relativity, we face the following dilemma.
> As
> > > is
> > > > > well known in general relativity the gravitational potential
> is
> > > > > identified with the metric tensor. Now in any quantum field
> > > theory,
> > > > > the fields themselves are subject to quantum fluctuations.
> Thus
> > > the
> > > > > quantised gravitational field would imply fluctuations in
> the
> > > field
> > > > > and since the gravitational potential reflects the metric
> > > properties
> > > > > of the space, the space-time itself must be fluctuating. But
> > > what
> > > > > then is meant by a fluctuating space-time?
> > > > >
> > > > > The third problem in assuming that space-time is fundamental
> > > arises
> > > > > from the appearance of quantum non-locality. If space-time
> is
> > > taken
> > > > > as primary, then, ipso facto, locality is absolute. Indeed
> the
> > > > > space-time manifold dominates classical physics because it
> has
> > > > > locality built into it right at the beginning. If we retain
> the
> > > > > space-time manifold, then quantum non-locality sits very
> > > > > uncomfortable in such a structure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Could it be that our insistence on taking a given space-time
> as
> > > > > basic is at fault?
> > > > >
> > > > > Could space-time merely be an appearance, a feature that has
> to
> > > be
> > > > > abstracted from some deeper structure, a structure where
> > > space-time
> > > > > itself is not taken as basic? If this were the case, then it
> > > would
> > > > > be establishing locality that would present the problem.
> Could
> > > it be
> > > > > that locality itself is merely a relationship? This
> relationship
> > > > > dominates the macroscopic world, but it would not be
> universally
> > > > > valid at the quantum level. Yes there is relativity,
> > > > > but does that theory apply to the level of a single photon
> or
> > > only
> > > > > to a statistical ensemble of photons?
> > > > >
> > > > > The first suggestive example of showing how locality could
> be a
> > > > > relationship appears in the hologram. Here a picture of an
> > > object is
> > > > > recorded as an interference pattern. The image of the
> original
> > > > > object can be re-created by using an appropriate light
> source.
> > > If
> > > > > the hologram is now torn in half and the light passed
> through
> > > this
> > > > > half, we again see the whole object, albeit with some loss
> of
> > > > > overall definition. Clearly the local regions of the
> > > > > original object are mapped into the whole of the photograph,
> so
> > > that
> > > > > locality is being carried in a non-local way. Thus locality
> here
> > > is
> > > > > clearly carried as a relationship. Can idea be generalised?
> > > > >
> > > > > Suppose locality is a relationship, could it be that quantum
> > > > > phenomena are in some sense beyond space-time and are merely
> > > > > projected into space-time by our macroscopic instruments? In
> > > other
> > > > > words, could quantum processes be evolving in some more
> general
> > > > > space, which for convenience we call simply 'pre-space'.
> This
> > > > > pre-space (Hiley 1991, Hiley and Monk 1993) would then give
> rise
> > > to
> > > > > Wheeler's (1980) pre-geometry. In this
> > > > > view, the space-time of the classical world would be some
> > > > > statistical approximation and not all quantum processes can
> be
> > > > > projected into this space without producing the familiar
> > > paradoxes,
> > > > > including non-separability and non-locality. In classical
> > > physics
> > > > > everything is local so that a single space-time can provide
> a
> > > > > contradiction free description. If we adopt this radical
> view,
> > > we
> > > > > can see that it is not necessary to insist on the Cartesian
> > > division
> > > > > between res extensa and res cogitans. Matter actually has
> its
> > > > > origins in a deeper structure, a structure where space-time
> and
> > > > > hence extension is not primary. If such an approach were
> viable
> > > then
> > > > > matter and mind need no longer be separated by space-time
> > > > > constraints.
> > > >
> > > > Have you anything else to offer other than the opinions of
> others
> > > that it is
> > > > doubtful you do not even understand?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Read my views at:
> > >
> > > http://cyberdyno1.tripod.com/
> >
> > Yea right. I asked for a simple coherent explanation of the
> philosophical
> > mumbo jumbo you write and what do you do - you point me to a link
> that says:
> >
> > 'Perception/sentience/communication are fundamental functions of
> all matter,
> > dead or alive. Sentience is not unique to living matter, living
> matter is
> > the result of sentience'
> >
> > It is obvious you are so caught up in some philosophical system
> only you
> > understand that you can not explain to others. Unfortunately such
> is not
> > science.
> >
> > Bill
>
>
> The laws that govern field behavior, or, the laws that govern
> quanta, are mediated at the aether level. The aether is where the
> laws by which the four fundamental forces of Nature behave are set,
> it is where the speed and direction of propagation of fields is
> > determined.
That the aether has never been detected and theories in full accord with
experiment exist that does not assume it trivially disproves the delusional
rantings you constantly post.
Bill
> Empty space (aether) is before Guth's Inflationary Universe. Because
> of the aether, the conditions necessary for the universe to be able
> to inflate at a speed higher than 'c' are
> possible.
>
> For there to be a field, empty space (aether) must be stressed, and
> that stress is the measure of energy. The way that energy behaves is
> tuned by the total energy available to the universe.
>
> The aether contains all the energy available to the universe. As
> bodies move through empty space, stress-energy tensors around that
> body automatically adjust according to the existing spacetime
> conditions at each point in space and time, that's a direct
> consequence of the continuous nature of the aether. That's the
> principle behind inertia and momentum. The time a moving body takes
> to reach thermal equilibrium with its surroundings is directly
> proportional to the inertia and momentum forces it will experience.
> Each body's energy requirements is tied to the total energy
> available to each given point in space and time.
>
> Any single quantum of energy can only exist only if it is in motion.
> Field motion becomes matter, therefore matter is energy. If we could
> stop the motion, matter would go back to being just empty space. The
> aether itself does not move, matter does, the quantum does. Since
> motion is not one of the aether's properties, then neither is time
> or change, making it immutable or eternal. And since time doesn't
> exist then space can't exist until it is contained, until it is
> quantized. there can't be space without time or motion, that's why
> Einstein called it spacetime. You can't talk about size until you
> have the limits, the boundaries. When I say the universe sits on the
> aether, I am not saying that the aether exists, I am only saying
> that it is. Only matter exists, the aether does not.
>
> That empty space is the plenum into which photons at the edge of the
> universe move into as fields. That empty space is infinite because
> it is infinitely divisible. But it isn't matter, that's why Einstein
> is right when he says the universe is background free. But having
> the properties it has, empty space seems like the wrong name, so why
> not call it like that Greek God - Aether.
>
> To be, all you need is to be able to act as a force, that why the
> aether does not exist as matter, but it is.
>
> Since the speed of light is constant, and since the speed of light
> is so closely related to the Compton wavelength and the
> Schwarzschild radius, the universe is the same everywhere,
> independently from the existing spacetime conditions. That's why a
> carbon atom will look and behave like a carbon atom anywhere in the
> universe. Since the aether's energy is finite and infinitely
> divisible, time and space need to contract and dilate accordingly,
> while mass [the amount of process] will increase or decrease,
> automatically adjusting to present spacetime conditions and thermal
> requirements as matter follows Nature's fundamental laws.
>
> --
> Laurent
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > For example would you mind
> > > elaborating
> > > > on what the reasoning behind 'Thus the quantised gravitational
> > > field would
> > > > imply fluctuations in the field and since the gravitational
> > > potential
> > > > reflects the metric properties of the space, the space-time
> itself
> > > must be
> > > > fluctuating'.
> > >
> > >
> > > That means that the gravitational field has to be a constant,
> hence
> > > the gravitational constant. It means that energy is finite.
> That's
> > > why fields fluctuate, including the gravitational field.
> > >
> > > Are aether and energy the same thing?
> > >
> > >
> > > > It is possible to formulate GR a spin 2 field
> > > theory in flat
> > > > space time.
> > >
> > >
> > > Right. That's what Alan Guth says, space is flat.
> > >
> > >
> > > > This would seem to imply the authors inference is not
> > > > supportable.
> > >
> > >
> > > But it doesn't, on the contrary, it proves it.
> > >
> > > The mere fact that there is spin proves it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Laurent
> > >
> > >
> > > > Or, as I suspect are you all hot air, simply making
> > > posts
> > > > about things you do no understand to try and give the
> appearance
> > > of
> > > > knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
- Next message: Double-A: "Re: The Cost of Relativity"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- In reply to: Laurent: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Next in thread: Laurent: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
