Re: Reflections on Aether
From: FrediFizzx (fredifizzx_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/22/04
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: a sound question???"
- Previous message: Dr. Jai Maharaj: "Re: ASETNIOP Keyboard"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Reflections on Aether"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Reflections on Aether"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Reflections on Aether"
- Reply: Mitchell: "Re: Reflections on Aether"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: Reflections on Aether"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:48:14 -0700
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:1Z8Wc.3349$D7.1825@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
|
| "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:2osijeFe9bvcU1@uni-berlin.de...
| > "Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
| > news:cgavvq$1p5$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
| > | In article <2os9bpFdhhq1U1@uni-berlin.de>,
| > | FrediFizzx <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
| > | >[sci.physics.relativity added where this is more on topic]
| > | >"Robert J. Kolker" <robert_kolker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | >news:Wb5Wc.68559$TI1.19770@attbi_s52...
| > | >| Here is an excerpt from Kevin Brown's book -Reflections on
| Relativity-
| > | >| which is available in the entirety at www.mathpages.com.
| > | >|
| > | >| He shows that a fluidic theory of aether cannot be maintained. Read
| it
| > | >| and judge for yourself.
| > | >
| > | >Here is an excerpt from Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet".
| > Read
| > | >it and judge for yourself.
| > | >
| > | >"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. 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.
| > |
| > | Your program seems to be to prove the existence of the aether by
finding
| > | ANYTHING about which any analogy to the aether can be made, and just
| > | call it the aether. But what is the point of that? It serves no
| purpose
| > | except to confuse definitions by extending an old term to new concepts
| > | that already have names.
| >
| > I call it the quantum vacuum. I don't know where you got the above
| > impression from. Apparently you have not read much of Volovik's book.
| >
| > | The electromagnetic field is not an aether, it is a field. The
| > | gravitational field is not an aether, it is the geometric structure of
| > | spacetime.
| >
| > There is no way in hell that spacetime is going to have a geometric
| > structure of any kind without vacuum quantum objects defining it.
|
| For any theory - there is no way in hell **** has such and such property
| without something else causing it. And the same applies to the new theory
| that explains ****. You get yourself precisely nowhere going down such a
| path.
You need to stop thinking of the old ideas of an aether and get with the
modern program. Vacuum charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) and no one has been able
to refute this yet. The quantum vacuum is not devoid of action thus hbar
can be and is due to a vacuum process. We already know that c is due to a
vacuum process. You will not find many particle physicists that *don't*
think the quantum vacuum is a dielectric medium that screens charge. The
solution is simple; the quantum vacuum is more organized than we think it
is. Coupled oscillators as opposed to only uncoupled oscillators.
FrediFizzx
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: a sound question???"
- Previous message: Dr. Jai Maharaj: "Re: ASETNIOP Keyboard"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Reflections on Aether"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Reflections on Aether"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Reflections on Aether"
- Reply: Mitchell: "Re: Reflections on Aether"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: Reflections on Aether"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|