Re: Vacuum - The Final Frontier
From: John C. Polasek (jpolasek_at_cfl.rr.com)
Date: 03/28/05
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: origin of inertia"
- Previous message: Jack: "Re: Photons shapeshifting to wave prior to measurement"
- In reply to: FrediFizzx: "Re: Vacuum - The Final Frontier"
- Next in thread: FrediFizzx: "Re: Vacuum - The Final Frontier"
- Reply: FrediFizzx: "Re: Vacuum - The Final Frontier"
- Reply: mountain man: "Re: Vacuum - The Final Frontier"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:20:55 -0500
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:28:57 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Jack" <chemphysicsdude@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1111967265.348196.234400@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>|
>|
>| I think we must invent new term in place of "vacuum". Some just avoid
>| the word "vacuum" and just use the word Aether. But both words can
>| mislead. What was described as the "vacuum" is now so full of
>| properties that the word loses its primary meaning. An "Aether" would
>| be a better description. Unfortunately. The Aether should only be used
>| when referring to frame of reference and as alleged medium for em
>| propagation. Many researchers, such as Retic, Laurent, etc. tried to
>| incorporate one of the two in their presentation about the richness of
>| space or vacuum resulting in instant rejection of their ideas because
>| of the word "aether" they so stubbornly holding on which unconsciously
>| biased their mind believing in medium for em and frame of reference
>| thing
>| just to defend the deeper qualities of the aether which is synonymous
>| to that of vacuum.
>|
>| What's a good word to replace the word Vacuum? We can never revert to
>| the
>| old word "Aether" because it's old meaning is so ingrained in everyone
>| mind already and only utter confusion can result. Besides,
>Relativistic
>| physics rule and what is new is super richness in the Vacuum.
>
>I believe the proper current term is "quantum vacuum". Volovik calls
>this the "new ether of the 21st century".
>
>| Maybe... hmm.. if John C. Polasek is right in his dual space thesis.
>We
>| must called it Polasek Sea? Lol...
>
>Hehe. It is too bad that John is lacking in microscopic detail (quantum
>object-wise) of the "Polasek Sea". But he calls this sea "Espace". I
>could go with that. Or how about "Qspacetime"? ;-)
Fredi, how could you not help noticing that my real electron and
positron, before their creation from virtual to actual, reside in a
cell 3.541e-14m. What more detail do you want than that? At least you
could refute it or something or argue about the size.
No one else has any specifications of the vacuum. And properly so: I
keep telling you that our universe consists of objects separated by a
profound void vacuum. But that an exact mirror of the vacuum exists,
being the undisturbed block that is Espace (my name for the QV).
Don't expect me to drag in some cryptic contraption from QED where
forces are "mediated" by particles. These people do not carry a jack
knife.
>
>| Anyway. Can you guys suggest a good new term for the word "vacuum"
>| (In the coming years when the properties of the vacuum is more
>| understood and it is proven to have super richness, it becomes utmost
>| necessity to use a new term)
>
>Unfortunately, I think we are going to be stuck with the oxymoronic term
>of "quantum vacuum". We call it the "Spin Matrix" in our quantum
>"vacuum" charge proposal.
>
>FrediFizzx
>
>http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
>or postscript
>http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
John Polasek
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: origin of inertia"
- Previous message: Jack: "Re: Photons shapeshifting to wave prior to measurement"
- In reply to: FrediFizzx: "Re: Vacuum - The Final Frontier"
- Next in thread: FrediFizzx: "Re: Vacuum - The Final Frontier"
- Reply: FrediFizzx: "Re: Vacuum - The Final Frontier"
- Reply: mountain man: "Re: Vacuum - The Final Frontier"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|