Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
From: Laurent (cyberdyno5_at_netzero.net)
Date: 07/20/04
- Next message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Renormalization in QED"
- Previous message: Ole D. Rughede: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:31:24 -0400
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:sb1Lc.8453$K53.4548@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:zNOdnZOS_YPiEmHdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:Wm%Kc.8342$K53.2136@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > > news:WvCdnZt6vvAO5GHdRVn-qA@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:UEJKc.7253$K53.5623@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in
message
> > > > > news:o59mf053tj17iklnhi4bt0elto5hvvm5ie@4ax.com...
> > > > > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:20:23 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
> > > > <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > >news:dpbkf01tfutr6ead3fj2nr7u1vb1g0m3a0@4ax.com...
> > > > > > >> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:25:06 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
> > > > <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote
in
> > > > message
> > > > > > >> >news:hfmif0tn9dof3h23u2lgv1baqvr2i10srk@4ax.com...
> > > > > > >> >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:29:02 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
> > > > > <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
> > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op>
wrote
> > in
> > > > message
> > > > > > >> >>
>news:FcjJc.1497$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.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yada, Yada, Yada.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is obvious more than that is required; and is the
reason
> > nearly
> > > > all
> > > > > scientists do not accept its existence. They are not
fools
> > > > despite what you
> > > > > may think.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > An attitude of admitting an aether may exist is one of
> > tolerance -
> > > > an
> > > > > attitude of asserting it must exist based on dubious
evidence
> > is
> > > > > belligerence.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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...).
> > > > >
> > > > > I have never dodged such questions. It is pressure
variations
> > in
> > > > something
> > > > > that has been detected - air. Take away air and you have
no
> > > > sound. OTOH EM
> > > > > waves are waves of EM fields which are nothing like a
material
> > > > medium such
> > > > > as air.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now we are talking!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Take away EM fields and you have no EM radiation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Take away Einstein's aether and you have no EM fields.
> > >
> > > EM fields obey Maxwell's equations. Your proof they imply the
> > existence of
> > > an aether is eagerly awaited.
> > >
> > > Bill
> >
> >
> > EM fields obey Nature's laws. There are several working theories
> > that describe EM field behavior, all mathematically correct.
There
> > even are non-working theories which are also mathematically
correct.
> >
> > I have no material proof, nobody does, but its reality can be
> > deduced by logic. For example, an aether is the only logical way
to
> > satisfactory explain action at a distance and quantum
non-locality.
>
> Such is obviously false as the existance of theories in full
accord with
> exprimnet that do not assume it proves.
>
> > How else can you logically explain the EPR experiment results or
the
> > Schroedinger's cat paradox? How about inertia?
> >
>
> Both EPR and the Schrodingers cat paradox are explainable by a
number of
> means - none of which require an aether. My favorite is quantum
state
> dissuasion at the plank time scale - see
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2001/HPL-2001-7.pdf. Another
possibility
> is that objective reality does not exist - all that exists is the
result of
> observations
Observers before matter - what a joke!
If we could place a video camera on a distant galaxy to record the
motions of some glacier, left and came back a week later, would the
tape be blank?
- that immediately cuts the assumptions of Bells
inequality
> right from underneath it ie observables do not have values until
they are
> observed in which case there is nothing to be non local or
collapse - see
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/. But in your
case you
> probably do not even know what assumptions went into its proof.
As is usual
> cranks confuse their ignorance of physical theories with how
nature works.
>
> Bill
Holism and Nonseparability in Classical Physics
Classical physics presents no clear examples of either physical
property holism or nonseparability. Since any example of physical
property holism would give rise to nonseparability, it suffices to
consider only the latter possibility. But the assumption that all
physical processes are separable forms part of the metaphysical
background to classical physics. In Newtonian spacetime, the
kinematical behavior of a system of point particles under the action
of finite forces would constitute a separable physical process,
since
it is supervenient upon ascriptions of particular values of position
and momentum to the particles along their trajectories during the
collision. This separability extends also to their dynamics if the
forces arise from fields defined at each spacetime point.
The boiling of a kettle of water is an example of a more complex
separable physical process. It consists in the increased kinetic
energy of its constituent molecules permitting each to overcome the
short range attractive forces which otherwise hold it in the liquid.
It thus supervenes on the assignment, at each spacetime point on the
trajectory of each molecule, of intrinsic physical properties to
that
molecule (such as its kinetic energy), together with intrinsic
physical properties representing the magnitude and direction of the
fields that give rise to the attractive force acting on that
molecule
at that point.
As an example of a separable process in Minkowski spacetime [the
spacetime framework for Einstein's special theory of relativity],
consider the propagation of an electromagnetic wave through empty
space. This is supervenient upon an ascription of electric and
magnetic field vectors at each point in the spacetime.
Any physical process described fully by a local spacetime theory
will
be separable. For such a theory proceeds by assigning geometric
objects (such as vectors or tensors) to each point in spacetime to
represent physical fields, and then requiring that these satisfy
certain field equations. But processes described fully by theories
of
other forms will also be separable. This is true not only of pure
field theories, but also of many theories which assign properties to
particles at each point on their trajectories. Of familiar classical
theories, it is only theories involving direct action between
spatially separated particles which involve nonseparability in their
description of the dynamical histories of individual particles. But
such processes are spatiotemporally separable within spacetime
regions
that are large enough to include all sources of forces acting on
these
particles, *so that the appearance of nonseparability may be
attributed
to a mistakenly narrow understanding of the spacetime region these
processes actually occupy.*
The propagation of gravitational energy according to general
relativity apparently involves nonseparable processes, since
gravitational energy cannot be localized (it does not contribute to
the stress-energy tensor defined at each point of spacetime as do
other forms of energy). *But even a non-locally-defined
gravitational
energy will still be supervenient upon the metric tensor defined at
each point of the spacetime, and so therefore will be the process of
its propagation.*
http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=physics-holism
>
> >
> > --
> > Laurent
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Wave in a medium are the result of the physical
> > > > characteristics
> > > > > > of the medium. Do you agree or disagree?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Talk about faulty logic, sheez...
> > > > >
> > > > > It might be a good idea to detail the error in logic
rather
> > than
> > > > allude to
> > > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>> ... 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Renormalization in QED"
- Previous message: Ole D. Rughede: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
