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

From: Laurent (cyberdyno5_at_netzero.net)
Date: 07/20/04 

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:38:57 -0400

"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.
>
> >> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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...).
>
> "Wave in a medium are the result of the physical
characteristics
> of the medium. Do you agree or disagree?
>
> Talk about faulty logic, sheez...

Calling aether a medium is incorrect, you may call it the matrix,
the origin, a plenum, the substrate to all that exists. A medium is
supposed to be material, the aether is not. The aether does not
exist, it is not matter, it isn't even quantum matter, it is before
all matter, before existence, before spacetime. 

--
Laurent
>
> >>> ... 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

Relevant Pages