Re: What is a field???
- From: "tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 Apr 2006 11:17:45 -0700
FrediFizzx wrote:
"DaveL" <nospam> wrote in messageAs I have said, it is time for us to combine field theories with the
news:DrqdnQ6EWcnRDqfZRVn-rA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:1144681507.933780.165150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > DaveL wrote:
| >> "Hexenmeister" <vanquish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| >> news:yed_f.206749$zk4.80076@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >>
| >> "DaveL" <nospam> wrote in message
| >> news:3sCdnX-H4db-oqTZRVn-ug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >> | Post your response here. I'm open for correction and/or
criticism. No
| >> hard
| >> | feelings or bad reactions.
| >> |
| >> | DaveL
| >>
| >> > Any eddies or currents would cause distortion in the light.
| >> > http://tinyurl.com/ezxxc
| >>
| >>
| >> As happens when light bends around massive bodies.
| >>
| >>
| >> > There is just simply no NEED for any aether.
| >>
| >>
| >> To me it all fits. Without the aether we are stuck with strange,
| >> nonsensical derivations of SR.
| >
| > Gee, the world is full of strange. I don't know *where* you got the
| > idea that nature should not be strange.
| >
| > As for nonsensical, I see nothing nonsensical about it at all.
| >
| > Now, if the problem is that you're not able to follow it, then the
| > problem is either your teacher or how you've gone about learning it,
| > not with the subject matter at all.
| >
|
|
| As far as SR goes, I'm self-taught. It's a good thing too because
this way
| I was able to form my own opinion. Unlike some of you, who were
obviously
| brainwashed by the status quo.
Unfortunately, it looks as if you taught yourself wrong.
| Without the aether as a medium and frame of reference Einstein
mistakenly
| had to accept LT as not an aberration of light but as reality. From
there
| he derived all sorts of impossible conclusions where inanimate objects
| magically change shape and size. Too bad he could not realize that
because
| c is finite, it must be based on something. This error lead to his
false
| assumption that time is no longer a constant but becomes determined by
| relative velocities.
Aether of your grand daddy is out; relativistic medium is in. Quantum
Vacuum Charge rules, baby!
Volovik says it very well in his comprehensive book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" first paragraph of the Conclusion,
"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century
[and last part of the 20th]. The electromagnetic and gravitational
fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong
interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the
quantum vacuum."
new evidence of Dark Matter and ideas of how the two are the same
thing, which we may call the ether.
"Quantum vacuum" charge must take a back seat to Dark Matter now in
this new millenium.
.
- References:
- What is a field???
- From: kenseto
- Re: What is a field???
- From: Henry Haapalainen
- Re: What is a field???
- From: DaveL
- Re: What is a field???
- From: Henry Haapalainen
- Re: What is a field???
- From: DaveL
- Re: What is a field???
- From: Hexenmeister
- Re: What is a field???
- From: DaveL
- Re: What is a field???
- From: PD
- Re: What is a field???
- From: DaveL
- Re: What is a field???
- From: FrediFizzx
- What is a field???
- Prev by Date: Re: What is a field???
- Next by Date: Re: What is a field???
- Previous by thread: Re: What is a field???
- Next by thread: Re: What is a field???
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
