Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
From: greywolf42 (mingstb_at_marssim-ss.com)
Date: 07/23/04
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv UNWIN EXPLAINS BIRTH"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: Mileva Maric Einstein"
- In reply to: stephen_at_nomail.com: "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 11:55:34 -0700
<stephen@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:cdpmq7$18d$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> In sci.physics.relativity greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> : <stephen@nomail.com> wrote in message
> : news:cdovc4$2cv3$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
{snip higher levels}
> :> You did not answer the question. Do your aetherons require a medium
> :> to propagate?
>
> : No. Aetherons are corpuscular. The aetherons comprise the medium.
> : (Just like sound propagates through the gas.) Gas particles don't exist
> : in a vacuum. Hence, they don't propagate in a vacuum. Nor does sound.
>
> That does not make any sense.
You mean that you cannot make sense of it. Actually, I'm sure you
understand it. You simply want to troll.
> Are you claiming that a gas particle cannot
> move through empty space unless that space is already occupied by other
> gas particles?
Not in the least. I claim only what I wrote.
> How do particles ever "collide" if they are unable to
> move through the empty space between them?
Since particles can move freely through empty space, this is a silly troll.
> Do your aetherons have this same
> restriction that they can only move if there are already other aetherons
> there?
You do make up the silliest strawmen, troll.
> :> If there is no space through which they cannot propagate
> :> does that not require that their is a medium?
>
> : There may be space where there is no aether (no aetherons). In which
> : case, they will not be propagating there. Nor will light be propagating
> : (because there is no aether).
>
> :> That seemed to be your
> :> argument for the existence of the aether, that because there is no
> :> space through which light cannot propagate there must be an aether
there.
>
> : That wasn't his argument.
>
> It sure sounded that way.
No, it did not. You are simply trolling.
> Suppose I claim that "motiontons" must exist
> in order to explain the motion of any particle.
Why another silly strawman, troll? No one claimed anything near this.
> Then what would the
> following mean to you?
> " Please define an experiment such that we have a region of space that
> physically CANNOT propagate any particle ... If & when you can
demonstrate
> this feat I will pony up and exclaim that region is motionton free
and
> any physics done in such is non-motionton based. I'll await with
great
> expectation your detailed proposal for accomplishing this monumental
> feat."
It would mean you are a pathetic troll.
But on the off chance that you are simply unable to understand what has been
written above, I will try to be clearer.
Empty space is really empty.
Corpuscles (aetherons) can freely move through empty space.
The corpuscles can interact with each other via collisions.
All the aetherons together comprise the aether fluid.
Light is a result of organized motions within the aether fluid.
Light cannot exist where there is no aether.
If you can find a region of space that contains no aether, then light will
not travel through that region.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv UNWIN EXPLAINS BIRTH"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: Mileva Maric Einstein"
- In reply to: stephen_at_nomail.com: "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
|
