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

From: Ole D. Rughede (ole.rughede_at_privat.dk)
Date: 07/25/04 

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 07:15:56 +0200

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:geEMc.15023$K53.11064@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
> news:4102b01c$0$289$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
> >
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:najMc.13404$K53.2787@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > "mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> > > news:BS2Mc.12519$K53.10883@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:UrMLc.11148$K53.9353@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > >
> > > > > "mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> > > > > news:grCLc.10587$K53.1058@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:17kHc.84891$sj4.28384@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:L5idnVERD4YQLnDdRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
> > > > > > > > Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Must we assume that in the absence of particles and fields,
> and
> > > in
> > > > > > > > the absence of space and time, there would be nothing?" -
John
> > > > > > > > Dobson
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nothingness does not exist and creation ex-nihilo is not
> > > physically
> > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Physics is not philosophy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Every physical theory has an express and implied philosophy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure - it is just a rather simplistic one.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Simple, often inter-related to technological issues,
> > > > rather than natural issues, and piece-meal rather than
> > > > unifying.
> > >
> > > The philosopher whose link I gave showed otherwise - physics requires
> > > nothing more than quite simple philosophical notions. If you failed
to
> > see
> > > his point no skin off my nose - believe what you like. The main thing
> is
> > > others who have read it will understand what is going on - in fact
> others
> > > have and commented how well it presented Feynmans views on the matter.
> > And
> > > none can doubt he was a great physicist.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Not that modern physicists could enunciate it, as they are often
> > > > > > totally unaware (ie: ignorant) of the philosophical foundations
> > > > > > of the physical scientific theories to which they subscribe.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I disagree - at least one philosopher has enunciated what most
> > > physicists
> > > > > such as Richard Feynman believe very well - see
> > > > > http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm. If one philosopher can nut
it
> > out
> > > I
> > > > > have no doubt any competent philosopher can. In fact I have no
> doubt
> > > > anyone
> > > > > with a reasonable bit of effort can nut it out - it is not that
> hard.
> > > > What
> > > > > he says is not news - people like you probably know it already -
you
> > > just
> > > > do
> > > > > not like it. So you claim they are ignorant of such things when
> such
> > > is
> > > > > obviously not the case.
> > > >
> > > > It is not a question of (academic) philosophers trying to present
the
> > > > specification of modern scientific theories, it is a question of
> modern
> > > > physicists trying to understand the dimension of philosophy.
> > > >
> > > > Here is a preface:
> > > > http://www.mountainman.com.au/buddha/Stcherbatsky_Buddhist_logic.htm
> > >
> > > But of course you have yet to demonstrate such philosophical musings
> > > actually aids in doing physics. Science is an experimental discipline
> so
> > it
> > > is natural to look at what physicists actually used to make progress
ie
> > > observe them. This is analyzed here -
> > > http://modeling.la.asu.edu/R&E/SecretsGenius.pdf. As can be seen
> > philosophy
> > > had nothing to with it. What you basically saying is philosophy is
> > > important to physics because I find philosophy important and will
> justify
> > my
> > > views by philosophical discourse. I say if philosophy is useful to
> > physics
> > > is to be found by analyzing what physicists actually did in order to
> make
> > > progress. I think most people will immediately recognize which method
> is
> > > likely to lead to valid answers.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > The philosophy embraced by modern contemporary science
> > > > > > is idealistic realism, and it effects the physics dramatically,
> most
> > > > > > particularly at the axiomatic and hypothetical level where the
> > > > > > definitions used are outlined and defined.
> > > > >
> > > > > You call it idealistic realism I call it mathematical realism -
the
> > idea
> > > > > 'reality is represented in the equations, which are the stuff of
> > > things'.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Read the above article very carefully.
> > >
> > > I did. It says things like:
> > >
> > > There is only One Substance! It is God (in his Cosmical Body).
> > >
> > > Such are obviously philosophical musings. What you have yet to
provide
> is
> > > evidence such considerations leads to progress in physics, while I
have
> > > provided a link that anywise exactly what is required - and it has
> nothing
> > > to do with philosophy.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > But guess what - it is irrelevant - all that matters is
> correspondence
> > > > with
> > > > > experiment - all else simply is gloss and dross. Do you have
> anything
> > > to
> > > > > discuss on that score? To be blunt about it science sticks very
> well
> > to
> > > > its
> > > > > principles of ensuring theories are in accord with experiment
which
> is
> > > all
> > > > > that really counts - it is people that do not like what modern
> > theories
> > > > say
> > > > > that attack it on the only ground left open - philosophy. But of
> > course
> > > > it
> > > > > is an attack science is invulnerable to - because in the final
> > analysis
> > > if
> > > > a
> > > > > theory cam make predictions and is in accord with experiment then
> > > nothing
> > > > > else really matters.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Experiments are critical for the wholesome nature of physics, and to
> > > > keep everything in a state of research and development. But
> > experimental
> > > > results can be re-analysed as new information comes to light. What
> one
> > > > day is taken to be evidence in support of Ptolemaic celestial
> mechanics,
> > > > is in another day taken to evidence of Newtonian celestial
mechanics.
> > >
> > > As discussions around here about the existence of an aether clearly
> > indicate
> > > any theory that is in accord with experiment is just as valid as any
> > other.
> > > Ptolemaic celestial mechanics is rejected because it is not in accord
> with
> > > experiment not because we reinterpreted experiments differently. When
> > faced
> > > with two theories equally in accord with experiment (aether theories
and
> > SR
> > > for example) then other considerations come into play. What
experience
> > has
> > > shown is that mathematical elegance and how well it meshes other
> theories
> > is
> > > what has fueled progress - not philosophical considerations.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > See for example the register of experiments which may be claimed to
> > > > demonstrate the systematic evidence of absolute motion, such notion
> > > > a totally banned concept in modern physics due to Einsteinien
> hypotheses
> > > > inbuilt into the current mathematical (GR) framework.
> > > >
> >
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/absolute_motion_register.htm
> > >
> > > I have examined such evidence before and just like Dayton Millerts
> > > experiments the problem is they do not provide conclusive evidence for
> the
> > > existence of an aether.
> >
> > Have you really critically examined such evidence Bill,
> > or are you just biased?
>
> There is no answer I can give that will convince you so I will not pass
> comment.

That's not hogwash. It's bull*** Bill. And you know it!
>
> >
> > As a previous link I gave on this matter stated (I
> > > really can not be bothered digging it up again) when we are faced with
a
> > > number of experiments that say an aether does not exist, an experiment
> > > (Dayton Millers experiment and maybe others) that says it may exist
but
> > may
> > > not as well, then the evidence is it does not exist. Such is simple
> > logic.
> >
> > Wrong!
> > Clonclusive evidence that the aether does not exist?
> > Proof please?
>
> I never claimed we have conclusive evidence it does not exist - this is
what
> I meant by - 'they do not provide conclusive evidence for the existence
of
> an aether.'

Fine! Chose your words more precisely and with greater caution.

> The obvious context of my claim 'then the evidence is it does not exist'
is
> that theories that do not assume it are in full accord with experiment.
If
> there was any doubt about what I was saying none can now exist.
>
Not evidence Bill. It's Billy-babble!
> >
> > > And your claim absolute motion is 'totally banned concept in modern
> > physics
> > > due to Einsteinien hypotheses inbuilt into the current mathematical
(GR)
> > > framework.' is hogwash of the first order. Any scientist who was able
to
> > > actually demonstrate such would be awrded he highest honors - simply
> look
> > > what explaining the photoelectric effect with the then 'sacrilegious'
> idea
> > > of light having a particle nature did for a certain patent clerk at
the
> > turn
> > > of the last century.
> >
> > More hogwash of the first order. What "sacrilegious"
> > should be about the Newtonian idea of light-particles
> > or the Huygens wave-description. Both were known
> > and had each there benefit.
>
> Newton's particle theory of light had been disproved at the turn of last
> century - in fact well before that eg it predicted light speeded up when
> being refracted.
>
> > Especially after Lebedev's
> > experiments and with a view to the mechanical theories
> > of Fresnel and Neumann before Maxwell's EM?
> >
> > Drude, Physik des Aethers, 1894, p 496 (having just shown
> > "Die elektrische Theorie entspricht also den tatsächlich beob-
> > achteten Verhältnisse"):
> >
> > "Die so entstandenen Formeln (26) für die elektrische Kraft
> > sind identisch mit den aus der mechanischen Theorie Fresnel's
> > folgenden, welcher annahm, dass der Aether in allen Körpern
> > die gleiche Elasticität, aber verschiedene Dichtigkeit besässe,
> > während die Formeln (26´) für die magnetische Kraft identisch
> > mit den Formeln Neumann's sind, welcher annahm, dass der
> > Aether in allen Körpern die gleiche Dichte, aber verschiedene
> > Elasticität besässe". ... and p. 503:
> >
> > "Maxwell hat gezeigt, dass man von den Lagrangeschen
> > Grundgleichungen der Mechanik aus zu den allgemeinen
> > Gleichungen des elektromagnetische Feldes gelangen kann,
> > wenn man die magnetische Energie als einen kinetischen
> > Vektor auffasst. Dies würde daher in gewissem Sinne der
> > Neumann'schen mechanischen Lichtteorie entsprechen".
>
> Dear Mr. language specialist - this is an English physics forum -
translate
> it into English if you wish a comment.
>
Now just a minute Mr. Hobbalong Casuality.
I shall be happy to give you my best translation,
for shall we say 1 £ a word, but isn't the education
where you come from so that you are able to read
a scientific text in the main-languages?

How the heck would you else be able to ever
understand or check what leading scientists would
kindly try to explain you?

You find your English Ed. version, and I shall give it
a critical look and tell you, if it may be improved.
Voltaire translated Newton's Principia into French,
and you probably know the rumors how amusing
it was to the French savants [meaning scholars] to
read about the attraction [meaning in French 'love']
between the heavenly gravitating bodies?

It is not yet a century ago that some European scholars
wrote their dissertations in Latin, of which you probably
understand nothing, meaning that you would be worse
on course with a an old Greek, modern Russian or
Hebrew text. I admit the old philosophers in original
languages are a problem, but if you should have a chance
to understand them and read them critically you have
to read them for what they said originally or rely on a
very acute and reliable translation by competent linguists.

My ancestors teached yours to speak English from
the same Gothic language that is so close to modern
Scandinavian languages that I without greater difficulties
am able to to read to-day and almost translate from the
reading page a passage in Wulfilas Bible-translation into
Gothic from about A.D. 400 in the Danube region where
East-Goths at that time were dwelling with relations
both to Byzanz as well as to the Nordic countries.

The German languages is of the same Gothic outspring
(thoug Germans since Grimm and Bobb prefer to call
it Germanic languages). Same as the Saxons spake and
have spoken since they invaded England as one of the
first waves of the Gothic expansion that has continued
to the present day. As you may see in the Cantebury
Tales also French became long after Roman occupation
of England during Cesar of impact onto English language
with lots of French loan-words. Better you study lingustics
if you aspire to become a great Hobbit in science!
> >
> > This, dear Billy Hobbadehoy, is an excellent example of
> > scientific progress in critical evaluation of existing theory
> > leading to new and better concepts in explaning observed
> > phenomena by (mechanical) analogy and combination of
> > existing knowledge (Faraday's fieldlines) and hypothesis,
> > as Maxwell did, into a unique new theory that much better
> > answered to observations and experiment.
> >
> > To be blunt it is obvious such claims as yours are a
> > > conspiratorial rant more indicative of some psychological problem,
> > > just like the claims that 500 mpg carburetors exist but are
> > > suppressed by the petrol companies is recognized as such.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > You Bill must be suffering from serious psychological problems
> > and defective rational thoughts. How dare you splash around
> > such hogwash? Don't you understand how you blame yourself?
>
> People have read what I write, people have read what you write and the
> conclusion in your case is clear - your are a crank and a crackpot of the
> first order. Just one example is your claim none of the standard
textbooks
> I often cite contain what you call 'buzzwords', words like Noethers
theorem
> when I was able to cite the relevant pages containing those very words.
As
> Franz says:

You are a liar and manipulator Bill. I did not claim anything.
I asked you where in your litterature you found your amazing
buzz-words.

To Franz pass my regard.
He really is an old fart,
He said to declare him a hey-man
You keep as a half-rotten strawman!

>
> '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.'
>
I'm flattered for the 3rd time you sing your apotheosis and
shall comment on it when I have nothing more serious to do.

> Nothing you have written has yet to change that assessment.
>
Words, words, words!
(Thief-stolen from Shakespeare, if you ever heard about him?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cahill shows that relativistic effects and absolute motion are not
> > > > mutually incompatible ---- see the process physics directory.
> > > >
> > Of course they are not incompatible, nor mutually excluding
> > as Bill would believe in his one-dimensional line of defective
> > thoughts
> >
> > > > Experiments are critical and are turning points in the history of
> > > > science.
> > > >
> > > > Pete Brown
> > > > Falls Creek
> > > > Oz
> > > > http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics
> > > >
> > > >
> > Observations and experiments are the crucial tests;
> > hypothesis and theory the turning points in science.
> > Every stone may be turned and all questions asked
> > in that pursuit. Science is not static, and the last word
> > will never be said. Cf. the following concuding words
> > in a speach by Einstein in memory of Maxwell:
> >
> > "Nevertheless. I am inclined to think that physicists will not be
> satisfied
> > in the long run with this kind of indirect description of reality, even
if
> > an adaptation of the theory to the demand of general relativity can be
> > achieved in a satisfactory way. Then they must surely be brought back to
> the
> > attempt to realise the programme which may suitably be designated as
> > Maxwellian: a description of physical reality in terms of fields which
> > satisfy partial differential equations in a way that is free from
> > singularities".
> >
> > Fields are not the reality. They are just terms in
> > a scientific symbolic description of the world as a
> > physical reality.
>
> Yada Yada Yada - make a prediction with your word games and we will see
> which holds up better - current theory or your rubbish. All you do is
> reinforce what Franz said 'All those words, and no physics'
>
> Bill
>
Yada Yada Yada.
I predict you stop slander and buzz-words,
 - maybe then talk physics of some worth?

You see Bill, language is our only means to communicate and
possibly understand what we are talking about. Therefore, in
your case, it is unfortunately necessary to use a lot of words
to bring you down to realities from your conceited ballooning.
Reality here - that frightens you so much - is about The Aether!
Forgot that?

Ole D. Rughede

Loading