| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Laurent" |
| Date: |
20 Mar 2005 11:36:51 AM |
| Object: |
Aether, the final frontier |
"To Descartes, who made extension the sole essential property of
matter, and matter a necessary condition of extension, the bare
existence of bodies apparently at a distance was a proof of the
existence of a continuous medium between them."
http://68.1911encyclopedia.org/A/AE/AETHER.htm
------------------------------------
It is a continuous medium because it is one, at that level space is
not particulated nor grainy.
If you could reduce yourself in size to the size of atoms you would
see spinning particles orbiting other particles, you go further down
in size and you will find quarks and maybe other electrically
charged particles, but eventually it will get the point where you
will see nothing. But we can't just call it empty if it is the
substrate to all that exists.
Particles are made from spinning or pulsating fields, hence the
field is the ultimate *material* reality, beyond that there is no
matter. But fields sit on the all pervading aether, without an
aether there would be no fields, hence no universe. So the aether IS
the ultimate reality. The aether is allpervading, omnipresent, not
subject to change, hence eternal, like God should be, the aether is
one.
So, as you have seen, we can effectively call empty space God, the
source of all there is, so what are all these Jews, Muslims and
Christians fighting about?
--
Laurent
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
20 Mar 2005 11:46:04 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
"They're" not fighting so much about the source as the exit or sink.
By the way, field theory hasn't yet quite demolished particles. I know
that many physicists would like to demolish Elementary Particle
Physics, but even if you demolish a particle you come up with a String
or Brane. Nobody has quite explained yet how a Field can exist if a
partice, string, or brane doesn't exist. Even T. Y. Cao (1997) of
Boston University, who claims that Fields are "substantial", qualifies
this by telling us not to throw out particles in effect. There's a
possibility that Jews, Christians, and Moslems and Hindus and Atheists
and Agnostics aren't really fighting among themselves as much as
scientists :>)
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
20 Mar 2005 12:04:10 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
I forgot Buddhism.
By the way, I typed the following already and posted it, but it
disappeared when I pressed the SEND button, so I'm typing roughly the
idea again.
It would be useful in my opinion for scientists and mathematicians who
get into political discussions to recall their childhood experiences
with school bullies. Many students believe that bullies only attack
students who "stand out" from the crowd and that conforming is the
answer. This belief tends to last through adulthood. The truth, in my
experience and also opinion, is that if you let bullies have their way,
they want more. This doesn't seem to have been realized by almost half
the USA voting population in the last election, of whom a large
proportion I suspect were in college or college graduates.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
20 Mar 2005 02:56:12 PM |
|
|
Lets not confuse Guth's 'false vacuum' with free or empty space. My
views are perfectly in line with CMBR, inflationary universes, Dark
Matter, String Theory and all that stuff.
I am imagining a level beyond Planck's scale, where the ultimate
reality is the aether, as conceived by Einstein, with his
gravitational or relativistic aether, or as Mach saw it when he
explained inertia with his reciprocatingly related space and matter.
--
Laurent
"OsherD" <mdoctorow@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1111340764.485747.76920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
From Osher Doctorow
"They're" not fighting so much about the source as the exit or
sink.
By the way, field theory hasn't yet quite demolished particles. I
know
that many physicists would like to demolish Elementary Particle
Physics, but even if you demolish a particle you come up with a
String
or Brane. Nobody has quite explained yet how a Field can exist if
a
partice, string, or brane doesn't exist. Even T. Y. Cao (1997) of
Boston University, who claims that Fields are "substantial",
qualifies
this by telling us not to throw out particles in effect. There's
a
possibility that Jews, Christians, and Moslems and Hindus and
Atheists
and Agnostics aren't really fighting among themselves as much as
scientists :>)
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
20 Mar 2005 12:30:24 PM |
|
|
Laurent wrote:
"To Descartes, who made extension the sole essential property of
matter, and matter a necessary condition of extension, the bare
existence of bodies apparently at a distance was a proof of the
existence of a continuous medium between them."
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
.
|
|
|
| User: "AB" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
25 Mar 2005 01:40:02 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4jj%d.5485$b37.4929@attbi_s02...
Laurent wrote:
"To Descartes, who made extension the sole essential property of
matter, and matter a necessary condition of extension, the bare
existence of bodies apparently at a distance was a proof of the
existence of a continuous medium between them."
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
OK Give me a clue - which kind of aether do you intimate we have none of?
Please.
Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
25 Mar 2005 07:09:17 AM |
|
|
AB wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4jj%d.5485$b37.4929@attbi_s02...
Laurent wrote:
"To Descartes, who made extension the sole essential property of
matter, and matter a necessary condition of extension, the bare
existence of bodies apparently at a distance was a proof of the
existence of a continuous medium between them."
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
OK Give me a clue - which kind of aether do you intimate we have none of?
Please.
Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)
The kind, there is no need for....
The kind, there is empirical evidence for...
The kind, that can be used as an "absolute" reference..
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
25 Mar 2005 08:48:37 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:09:17 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
AB wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4jj%d.5485$b37.4929@attbi_s02...
Laurent wrote:
"To Descartes, who made extension the sole essential property of
matter, and matter a necessary condition of extension, the bare
existence of bodies apparently at a distance was a proof of the
existence of a continuous medium between them."
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
OK Give me a clue - which kind of aether do you intimate we have none of?
Please.
Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)
The kind, there is no need for....
You wish... Show us how to get transference of momentum/energy
from one point to another without something to carry it.
The kind, there is empirical evidence for...
*****! see above!
The kind, that can be used as an "absolute" reference..
:) CMBR...
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
See above...
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
25 Mar 2005 07:15:35 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
AB wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4jj%d.5485$b37.4929@attbi_s02...
Laurent wrote:
"To Descartes, who made extension the sole essential property of
matter, and matter a necessary condition of extension, the bare
existence of bodies apparently at a distance was a proof of the
existence of a continuous medium between them."
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
OK Give me a clue - which kind of aether do you intimate we have none of?
Please.
Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)
The kind, there is no need for....
The kind, there is [no] empirical evidence for...
The kind, that can be used as an "absolute" reference..
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
.
|
|
|
| User: "AB" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
26 Mar 2005 03:40:32 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:X9U0e.17783$fn3.16641@attbi_s01...
Sam Wormley wrote:
AB wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4jj%d.5485$b37.4929@attbi_s02...
Laurent wrote:
"To Descartes, who made extension the sole essential property of
matter, and matter a necessary condition of extension, the bare
existence of bodies apparently at a distance was a proof of the
existence of a continuous medium between them."
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
OK Give me a clue - which kind of aether do you intimate we have none
of?
Please.
Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)
The kind, there is no need for....
The kind, there is [no] empirical evidence for...
The kind, that can be used as an "absolute" reference..
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
Thank you. You are a true gentleman.
The kind, there is no need for....
There is no need to climb mountains, there is no need to explore space or to
go to mars.
Yet we do. Why? Human curiosity of course. So there does not have to be "a
need" in
order to investigate and understand.
The kind, there is [no] empirical evidence for...
Let us consider electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of several
metres.
One can readily measure the electric field associated with the EMR under
investigation. An electric field is a phenomenon which occurs in the region
of charged particles and in no other circumstances.
Where and what are the charged particles associated with EMR?
Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
03 Jul 2005 02:02:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:40:32 -0000, "AB" <monitek@aol.com> wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:X9U0e.17783$fn3.16641@attbi_s01...
Sam Wormley wrote:
AB wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4jj%d.5485$b37.4929@attbi_s02...
Laurent wrote:
"To Descartes, who made extension the sole essential property of
matter, and matter a necessary condition of extension, the bare
existence of bodies apparently at a distance was a proof of the
existence of a continuous medium between them."
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
OK Give me a clue - which kind of aether do you intimate we have none
of?
Please.
Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)
The kind, there is no need for....
The kind, there is [no] empirical evidence for...
The kind, that can be used as an "absolute" reference..
***********************************************************
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
***********************************************************
Thank you. You are a true gentleman.
Actually, Sam likes to parrot others & do blind references. Rarely
if ever does he post anything of his own making.
The part marked by **** above is a plagerized comment from another
poster in sci.physics (Uncle Al) who is a crass uncouth individual.
And is, in fact, no evidence against aether.
The kind, there is no need for....
There is no need to climb mountains, there is no need to explore
space or to go to mars.
However, there is a 'need' for something to regulate the speed of
light. To make it's speed finite, independent of any motion of
emitter/receiver, and locally invariant. Otherwise one MUST invoke
magic (which is the same as, 'just because').
Yet we do. Why? Human curiosity of course. So there does not have
to be "a need" in order to investigate and understand.
I'm sorry sir, your words are falling upon deaf ears...
The kind, there is [no] empirical evidence for...
Let us consider electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of
several metres. One can readily measure the electric field associated
with the EMR under investigation. An electric field is a phenomenon
which occurs in the region of charged particles and in no other
circumstances.
There is, of course, the well known acoustical expression,
c^2 = B/¿
Where ¿ = medium density
B = Bulk Modulus
And the further definition,
µ = 1/B
Where µ = the coefficient of compressibility
Then we have, for our acoustical expression,
c^2 = 1/µ¿
In the rational MKSC system for Electromagetism we have the expression,
c^2 = 1/µ£
Where, in this case,
µ = Premeability
£ = Permitivitty
We now have a choice, assume that these two expression are, by pure
chance, identical, or physically, they express the same thing.
Ockham's Razor cuts in favor of the later. There is of course, many
other elements that point to such a medium. Unfortunately, the nature
of matter gave us a Lorentz covariance symmetry, thus measuring our
speed wrt the aether isn't possible by any TWLS material system. It
can be done however, quite simply & easily.
Where and what are the charged particles associated with EMR?
In Maxwell's lattice of course :)
See: http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
04 Jul 2005 03:27:13 AM |
|
|
Paul Stowe:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:40:32 -0000, "AB" <monitek@aol.com> wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
***********************************************************
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
***********************************************************
Thank you. You are a true gentleman.
Actually, Sam likes to parrot others & do blind references. Rarely
if ever does he post anything of his own making.
The part marked by **** above is a plagerized comment from another
poster in sci.physics (Uncle Al) who is a crass uncouth individual.
And is, in fact, no evidence against aether.
There's no evidence against magic either, except the failure of
those who believe it to predict something that isn't more easily
explained without it using ordinary physics. Therefore, your ether
has about the same priority on the list of phenomena physicists
have a need to explain.
The kind, there is no need for....
There is no need to climb mountains, there is no need to explore
space or to go to mars.
However, there is a 'need' for something to regulate the speed of
light.
Only if you are completely unable to understand relativity (which
in your case appears to be true despite having seen it on this
newsgroup for years). But your failure to understand physics is not a
valid reason for physicists to accomodate you by agreeing to that
ridiculous notion of yours.
To make it's speed finite, independent of any motion of
emitter/receiver, and locally invariant. Otherwise one MUST invoke
magic (which is the same as, 'just because').
Are you claiming that physical laws depend on one's location in
space and what day of the week it is? Since the only ``magic''
involved is assuming that physical laws don't depend on those
things, there's not really anything else you could be calling
``magic.''
Yet we do. Why? Human curiosity of course. So there does not have
to be "a need" in order to investigate and understand.
I'm sorry sir, your words are falling upon deaf ears...
Curiosity has to do with a desire to know how the universe works
on nature's terms. Curiosity has nothing to do with trying to force
nature to conform to your idea of how nature ought to work. As usual,
you abuse the language to set up a strawman, when the fact is that
your ideas about the universe represent anything but curiosity, as
experimental evidence means nothing to you other than an obstacle
to the acceptance of your pet philosophy.
The kind, there is [no] empirical evidence for...
Let us consider electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of
several metres. One can readily measure the electric field associated
with the EMR under investigation. An electric field is a phenomenon
which occurs in the region of charged particles and in no other
circumstances.
There is, of course, the well known acoustical expression,
c^2 = B/¿
Where ¿ = medium density
B = Bulk Modulus
But, for some reason, your ``curiousity'' has never led you to
wonder why light, which has only transverse polarizations, should
be described by an expression for a longitudinal compression wave.
Even worse, you have no curiosity about the other quantities derived
using the same model from which you lifted that expression. I guess
you can have too much of a good thing.
You also equivocate the lack of ointerest physicists have in your
so-called theory with a lack of interest in the breakdown of lorentz
invariance, about which there are lots of articles. For example,
on scholar.google.com, the _quoted_ phrase: "breakdown of lorentz
invariance" gives 176 matches. On the first page alone, the majority
of these were published in phys. rev. D or prl. Authors include rather
notable physicists, e.g., glashow, s. (62 citations and 70 citations
representing two different articles out of the first 10 returned).
By not quoting the phrase, I get 2840 matches. In short, there is
no shortage of physicists who are curious about the validity of
special relativity. There just aren't any phyicists who are interested
in your idea of what's wrong with it - mainly because they were
curious enough about physics to study the physics you are trying
to exploit and they realize why it doesn't work. You aren't curious
enough to discover the problems you would have to overcome and you
ignore the obvious problems that have been pointed out to you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lee Pugh" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
03 Jul 2005 04:54:14 PM |
|
|
However, there is a 'need' for something to regulate the speed of
light. To make it's speed finite, independent of any motion of
emitter/receiver, and locally invariant. Otherwise one MUST invoke
magic (which is the same as, 'just because').
Hi Paul
When discussing Aether as a thing which regulates the speed of light, should
you not recoginize that any cyclic electrically charged avalanch propagation
must pause and reverse direction each half cycle? This would pretty much
cancel out any variants of motion of source and/or targets.
Is there not the non/cyclic propagations of things like the electrical
field of permanent magnets whose inflated field under tension, is propagated
everywhere practically at once, and also the electrical field of celestial
masses that support gravitation by propagating instantly the Amperian
Dynamic electrical fields whose gradient of strength in the direction of
propagation is the cause of the effects which are magnetism and gravity in
the wysiwyg physical world. Aether being only a soup of miscellainious
electrical charges before taking on the topology of the Amperian dynamic
electrical fields which abound.
In order to achieve the passage of numerous dynamic electrical fields in
multiple and crossing and even opposite directions surely there must be the
sea of charges to host (vehicle) the fields topology of dynamic electrical
fields in avalanch propagation.
You will note that when any target is painted with numerous dynamic
electrical fields from numerous frames that the target, a charged partical
in motion will seek the path of least resistance of the aggregate of all the
topologies of all the dynamic electrical fields causing a singular response,
as a re-direction of its own inertia.
Kind regards, Lee Pugh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
04 Jul 2005 09:46:45 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:54:14 GMT, "Lee Pugh" <miltonpugh@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
However, there is a 'need' for something to regulate the speed of
light. To make it's speed finite, independent of any motion of
emitter/receiver, and locally invariant. Otherwise one MUST invoke
magic (which is the same as, 'just because').
Hi Paul
When discussing Aether as a thing which regulates the speed of light,
should you not recoginize that any cyclic electrically charged
avalanche propagation must pause and reverse direction each half
cycle? This would pretty much cancel out any variants of motion of
source and/or targets.
In a medium waves propagate at a characteristic speed. For some
detail see,
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath109/kmath109.htm
likewise, any momentum/energy also must be communicated by transference
of collisions of the media's particles. If they have some mean speed
c, that is the characteristic speed for which ALL types of such
'information' can be conveyed. See also,
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath569/kmath569.htm
Is there not the non/cyclic propagations of things like the
electrical field of permanent magnets whose inflated field under
tension, ...
Yes, see above.
... is propagated everywhere practically at once, ...
Not possible in a medium. It cannot physically transfer information
faster than the mean speed since these convey that information. This
known fact is solid evidence in favor of the medium since in our
universe we observe this.
and also the electrical field of celestial masses that support
gravitation by propagating instantly the Amperian Dynamic electrical
fields whose gradient of strength in the direction of propagation is
the cause of the effects which are magnetism and gravity in the
wysiwyg physical world.
You may believe this, I do not. I do not think electrical fields are
gravitational in nature, nor are they 'directly' related. Indirectly,
yes. Can one affect the other, likely, but the question is the coupling
strength.
Aether being only a soup of miscellainious electrical charges before
taking on the topology of the Amperian dynamic electrical fields
which abound.
I don't think so. charge fundamental results directly from the fact
that the aether is compressible. See,
http://www.mountainman.com.au/charge_ps.htm
In order to achieve the passage of numerous dynamic electrical fields
in multiple and crossing and even opposite directions surely there
must be the sea of charges to host (vehicle) the fields topology of
dynamic electrical fields in avalanch propagation.
In Maxwell's view the electric field is the direct result of the
Bernouilli effect of interacting circulations (Magnetism, a.k.a., the
Vector Potential). Pictorially this, let X be clockwise fluid
rotation and * counterclockwise. Then two parallel vortex line
filiments interact as either,
{circulation}
^ X v^ X ^
<-E->
< <
with a repulsive E Field potential (example, two parallel conductors
carrying currents in the same direction). Or,
< >
v * ^^ X v
->E<-
<
being attractive. Thus, just like magnetism, like 'charges' repel
and unlike attract. This IS the E&M coupling. Read carefully the
Maxwell reference I provided earlier. The so-called 'Vector
Potential' is the twist, or rotation of vortex elements.
You will note that when any target is painted with numerous dynamic
electrical fields from numerous frames that the target, a charged
particle in motion will seek the path of least resistance of the
aggregate of all the topologies of all the dynamic electrical fields
causing a singular response, as a re-direction of its own inertia.
That is true for all medaia. Nature will follow the path of least
effort.
Kind regards, Lee Pugh
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
03 Jul 2005 05:25:48 PM |
|
|
In article <49bgc15evfu1jo4lekr8q4msklpbp5gpst@4ax.com>, Paul Stowe
<ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote:
However, there is a 'need' for something to regulate the speed of
light. To make it's speed finite,
There is no such need. c is the only possible speed in a discrete
universe. Nothing moves faster or slower. Particles move by making
discrete jumps. If the macroscopic speed of a particle is measured to
be lower than c, it is because the particle's motion consists of
minute jumps and rests. These average out to a speed less than c.
Having said that, if you haven't yet come to understand that the
universe is discrete, you're up ***** creek.
independent of any motion of
emitter/receiver, and locally invariant.
Only the ***measured*** speed of light is independent of source and
FORs. Why? because c is part and parcel of our measuring tools. It's
like using a ruler to measure itself: you always get the same answer.
I would be surprised to hear that one could **measure** c to be
dependent on a FOR.
Otherwise one MUST invoke
magic (which is the same as, 'just because').
There is no magic. All we need is understanding and we can get it by
constructing particle-centric models as opposed to observer-centric
models, as has been the practice for so long.
There is an aether, no doubt about it. But its purpose is not for the
usual reasons such as being a medium for waves. There are no waves.
The purpose of the aether will become clear to all, once we get rid of
our blinders (wrong assumptions) and come to understand how things
move. Four hundred years after Newton and physicists still have no
clue as to why a moving body remains in motion. They think a particle
remains in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic. What's more
pathetic, they don't even care to understand.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
03 Jul 2005 05:12:04 PM |
|
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
However, there is a 'need' for something to regulate the speed of
light. [...]
Hmmm. Just like there is a "need" to make a free-falling object in zero
gravity travel along a straight line.
When you find the "aether" that "regulates" such straight-line motion,
then it will be time to actively seek the lumeniferous aether that
"regulates" lightspeed.
Until then, the rest of us will simply use geometry. The observation
that the world is locally Minkowskian, instead of locally Euclidean as
you implicitly assume, is extremely well supported experimentally. And
there's no a priori reason to prefer Euclidean over Minkowskian -- both
are assumptions.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
03 Jul 2005 11:36:09 PM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:UoZxe.140$ER6.54@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
| Paul Stowe wrote:
| > However, there is a 'need' for something to regulate the speed of
| > light. [...]
|
| Hmmm. Just like there is a "need" to make a free-falling object in
zero
| gravity travel along a straight line.
??? Is this suppose to make sense?
| When you find the "aether" that "regulates" such straight-line motion,
| then it will be time to actively seek the lumeniferous aether that
| "regulates" lightspeed.
Why do you think it necessary that a medium regulate straight-line
motion? It seems to me that it doesn't necessarily have to be a
requirement to go along with a velocity regulation. The so-called
"lumeniferous aether" has actually been found for quite some time now.
As Volovik says,
"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."
Particle accelerators probe the quantum "vacuum" all the time
now-a-days. More is being learned about it all the time now.
| Until then, the rest of us will simply use geometry. The observation
| that the world is locally Minkowskian, instead of locally Euclidean as
| you implicitly assume, is extremely well supported experimentally. And
| there's no a priori reason to prefer Euclidean over Minkowskian --
both
| are assumptions.
Well, that certainly doesn't mean that there can't be a relativistic
medium. Neutrinos are possibly one of the clues among many. When it
comes right down to it, the Standard Model is based on a relativistic
medium.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.
|
|
|
| User: "p6" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
04 Jul 2005 01:36:39 AM |
|
|
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:UoZxe.140$ER6.54@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
| Paul Stowe wrote:
| > However, there is a 'need' for something to regulate the speed of
| > light. [...]
|
| Hmmm. Just like there is a "need" to make a free-falling object in
zero
| gravity travel along a straight line.
??? Is this suppose to make sense?
| When you find the "aether" that "regulates" such straight-line motion,
| then it will be time to actively seek the lumeniferous aether that
| "regulates" lightspeed.
Why do you think it necessary that a medium regulate straight-line
motion? It seems to me that it doesn't necessarily have to be a
requirement to go along with a velocity regulation. The so-called
"lumeniferous aether" has actually been found for quite some time now.
As Volovik says,
"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."
Supposed for example the quantum vacuum disappears in a region of
space. I wonder if electromagnetic wave can continue to travel.
If it can't. Then the quantum vacuum is the relativistic medium
and this proves the aether is not necessary.
But then, nowadays. People define aether to mean almost anything
from EL chaos potential energy to Thomson basic matter units. I
think let's just use aether when debating whether there is
a background where things are relative to there isn't... as
in Einstein Relativity concept. I think the latter wins.
In the ancient times. There is a term used called Akashic Field.
Maybe when one is referring to the most primary substrate which
is before space (such as Laurent), but doesn't have relative
frame. Then one can call it Akashic Field instead of Aether
to avoid confusion.
p6
Particle accelerators probe the quantum "vacuum" all the time
now-a-days. More is being learned about it all the time now.
| Until then, the rest of us will simply use geometry. The observation
| that the world is locally Minkowskian, instead of locally Euclidean as
| you implicitly assume, is extremely well supported experimentally. And
| there's no a priori reason to prefer Euclidean over Minkowskian --
both
| are assumptions.
Well, that certainly doesn't mean that there can't be a relativistic
medium. Neutrinos are possibly one of the clues among many. When it
comes right down to it, the Standard Model is based on a relativistic
medium.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
04 Jul 2005 05:19:53 AM |
|
|
p6:
FrediFizzx wrote:
"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."
Supposed for example the quantum vacuum disappears in a region of
space. I wonder if electromagnetic wave can continue to travel.
If it can't. Then the quantum vacuum is the relativistic medium
and this proves the aether is not necessary.
That's like asking if light will continue to propagate outside
the universe. The question doesn't make physical sense. It also
doesn't make sense to refer to the vacuum as any sort of medium,
unless one is going to construct a medium with the properties
that define media.
But then, nowadays. People define aether to mean almost anything
from EL chaos potential energy to Thomson basic matter units. I
think let's just use aether when debating whether there is
a background where things are relative to there isn't... as
in Einstein Relativity concept. I think the latter wins.
The question here is, why redefine the ether to mean something
other than what it means rather than simply use the correct terminology?
If one abandons the concept of a medium for the concept of the
quantum vacuum, then one has abandoned the ether theory for all of
the reasons the ether was invented and eventually failed. The concept
called the vacuum was not called the ether, because it isn't a
medium. Media are substances composed of consituents which act
collectively to define bulk properties.
In the ancient times. There is a term used called Akashic Field.
Maybe when one is referring to the most primary substrate which
is before space (such as Laurent), but doesn't have relative
frame. Then one can call it Akashic Field instead of Aether
to avoid confusion.
If one is going to use a term to mean ``quantum vacuum,'' what's
wrong with ``quantum vacuum?'' Writing for one's audience applies to
physicists, too. An article directed at physicists should present
the content sing termiology the way physicists have defined it for
reasons of conveying ideas cleary to other physicists. One's personal
idea of how something should be defined is irrelevant. What matters
is what the audience thinks the terminology means.
.
|
|
|
| User: "p6" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
04 Jul 2005 05:49:52 AM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
p6:
FrediFizzx wrote:
"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."
Supposed for example the quantum vacuum disappears in a region of
space. I wonder if electromagnetic wave can continue to travel.
If it can't. Then the quantum vacuum is the relativistic medium
and this proves the aether is not necessary.
That's like asking if light will continue to propagate outside
the universe. The question doesn't make physical sense. It also
doesn't make sense to refer to the vacuum as any sort of medium,
unless one is going to construct a medium with the properties
that define media.
But then, nowadays. People define aether to mean almost anything
from EL chaos potential energy to Thomson basic matter units. I
think let's just use aether when debating whether there is
a background where things are relative to there isn't... as
in Einstein Relativity concept. I think the latter wins.
The question here is, why redefine the ether to mean something
other than what it means rather than simply use the correct terminology?
If one abandons the concept of a medium for the concept of the
quantum vacuum, then one has abandoned the ether theory for all of
the reasons the ether was invented and eventually failed. The concept
called the vacuum was not called the ether, because it isn't a
medium. Media are substances composed of consituents which act
collectively to define bulk properties.
In the ancient times. There is a term used called Akashic Field.
Maybe when one is referring to the most primary substrate which
is before space (such as Laurent), but doesn't have relative
frame. Then one can call it Akashic Field instead of Aether
to avoid confusion.
If one is going to use a term to mean ``quantum vacuum,'' what's
wrong with ``quantum vacuum?'' Writing for one's audience applies to
physicists, too. An article directed at physicists should present
the content sing termiology the way physicists have defined it for
reasons of conveying ideas cleary to other physicists. One's personal
idea of how something should be defined is irrelevant. What matters
is what the audience thinks the terminology means.
I agree we must let go of the word "Aether", why fight over a word.
Instead, either we can simply called it as hidden richness of the
quantum vacuum or another term such as Akashic field.
What is the hidden richness I'm talking about. Isn't it that
before a particle is being measured, it exists as potentialities
and ruled by probability law. Let's call it the Unmanifested.
What science didn't know is that in the Potentiality or
Unmanifested state of the particle. It can be influenced.
There seems to be another physics governing the unmanifested.
One where negative entropy and holographic template ordering
rules.
Now what's the best word or term to use in the dynamics of
the unmanifested. Laurent called it Aether and as a result,
mix it up with an outdated concept, causing nothing but
confusion.
We may simply called it Information Field. It is the same field
that may be responsible for entanglement and non-locality, and
also the reason why space is so flat. It controls the entire
universe. It may also be responsible for fine tuning all the
constants of nature.
I know reality is something close to this. Because when
we qi healers heal. We can access the holofield of anyone
anywhere in the planet.. by simply summoning it in the
quantum vacuum and then fixing the holofield which can
reflect in the physical body of the patient (wherever he is
in the planet).
Let's not debate about this. I'll present it someday in total
details (if it is permitted) after I've figured out its ins
and outs in pure physics terms.
p6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
05 Jul 2005 02:23:06 AM |
|
|
p6:
Bilge wrote:
If one is going to use a term to mean ``quantum vacuum,'' what's
wrong with ``quantum vacuum?'' Writing for one's audience applies to
physicists, too. An article directed at physicists should present
the content sing termiology the way physicists have defined it for
reasons of conveying ideas cleary to other physicists. One's personal
idea of how something should be defined is irrelevant. What matters
is what the audience thinks the terminology means.
I agree we must let go of the word "Aether", why fight over a word.
There is no ``we'' here. I grew up in the latter half of 20th century,
by which time, everyone had already let go of the ether.
Instead, either we can simply called it as hidden richness of the
quantum vacuum or another term such as Akashic field.
No, we can't. The quantum vacuum is not simply jargon invented
as catchall phrase that sounds better than ``miscellaneous stuff.''
The vacuum has a rigorous, field theoretic definition. It's not
subject to arbitrary modification if it doesn't serve the purpose
the theory requires by virtue of its derivation.
[...]
What science didn't know is that in the Potentiality or
Unmanifested state of the particle. It can be influenced.
There seems to be another physics governing the unmanifested.
One where negative entropy and holographic template ordering
rules.
The vacuum cannot ``influence particles.'' By virtue of what it is,
it cannot affect the outcome of an experiment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "p6" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
05 Jul 2005 03:00:37 AM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
p6:
Bilge wrote:
If one is going to use a term to mean ``quantum vacuum,'' what's
wrong with ``quantum vacuum?'' Writing for one's audience applies to
physicists, too. An article directed at physicists should present
the content sing termiology the way physicists have defined it for
reasons of conveying ideas cleary to other physicists. One's personal
idea of how something should be defined is irrelevant. What matters
is what the audience thinks the terminology means.
I agree we must let go of the word "Aether", why fight over a word.
There is no ``we'' here. I grew up in the latter half of 20th century,
by which time, everyone had already let go of the ether.
Instead, either we can simply called it as hidden richness of the
quantum vacuum or another term such as Akashic field.
No, we can't. The quantum vacuum is not simply jargon invented
as catchall phrase that sounds better than ``miscellaneous stuff.''
The vacuum has a rigorous, field theoretic definition. It's not
subject to arbitrary modification if it doesn't serve the purpose
the theory requires by virtue of its derivation.
[...]
What science didn't know is that in the Potentiality or
Unmanifested state of the particle. It can be influenced.
There seems to be another physics governing the unmanifested.
One where negative entropy and holographic template ordering
rules.
The vacuum cannot ``influence particles.'' By virtue of what it is,
it cannot affect the outcome of an experiment.
That's why I mentioned it is hidden richness of the quantum
vacuum that can somehow affect the wave function of the particles.
Maybe one must call it conjugate quantum vacuum to differentiate
it from the normal quantum vacuum. Speaking of vacuum. I just
got Griffith's very interesting book "Introduction to Elementary
Particles" a few hours ago. Maybe with it I can be thoroughly
acquainted with the normal vacuum. It has interesting topics
about Gauge Theories, Lagrangians, Relativistic Kinematics,
Yang-Mills Theory, Dirac Equations, etc. After I read it for
a couple of weeks or a month. Maybe I can understand better
what is qi.
(Bryan, Bill, let's fight another day, I'd be busy reading
the book this month)
p6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
06 Jul 2005 04:26:04 AM |
|
|
p6:
Bilge wrote:
p6:
Bilge wrote:
If one is going to use a term to mean ``quantum vacuum,'' what's
wrong with ``quantum vacuum?'' Writing for one's audience applies to
physicists, too. An article directed at physicists should present
the content sing termiology the way physicists have defined it for
reasons of conveying ideas cleary to other physicists. One's personal
idea of how something should be defined is irrelevant. What matters
is what the audience thinks the terminology means.
I agree we must let go of the word "Aether", why fight over a word.
There is no ``we'' here. I grew up in the latter half of 20th century,
by which time, everyone had already let go of the ether.
Instead, either we can simply called it as hidden richness of the
quantum vacuum or another term such as Akashic field.
No, we can't. The quantum vacuum is not simply jargon invented
as catchall phrase that sounds better than ``miscellaneous stuff.''
The vacuum has a rigorous, field theoretic definition. It's not
subject to arbitrary modification if it doesn't serve the purpose
the theory requires by virtue of its derivation.
[...]
What science didn't know is that in the Potentiality or
Unmanifested state of the particle. It can be influenced.
There seems to be another physics governing the unmanifested.
One where negative entropy and holographic template ordering
rules.
The vacuum cannot ``influence particles.'' By virtue of what it is,
it cannot affect the outcome of an experiment.
That's why I mentioned it is hidden richness of the quantum
vacuum that can somehow affect the wave function of the particles.
What you call ``hidden richness'' is an explicit contradiction
of what defines the vacuum. If the vacuum did not disappear from
any measured quantity, then it wouldn't be the vacuum. It would
be a force that you have to quantify in a theory in order to eliminate
it from any definition of the vacuum. Seriously, you cannot
whimsically attribute some mystical property to the vacuum just
to make some unquantifiable belief in something appear less magical.
The vacuum is defined by quantum field theory, so the only way to
make any meaningful statement about an interaction involving
vacuum, is to first have a quantum field theory which quantifies
the interaction. So, either you are claiming you have a quantum
field theory for a new force, or your assertions about the vaccum
are misplaced.
.
|
|
|
| User: "p6" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
06 Jul 2005 05:23:13 AM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
p6:
Bilge wrote:
p6:
Bilge wrote:
If one is going to use a term to mean ``quantum vacuum,'' what's
wrong with ``quantum vacuum?'' Writing for one's audience applies to
physicists, too. An article directed at physicists should present
the content sing termiology the way physicists have defined it for
reasons of conveying ideas cleary to other physicists. One's personal
idea of how something should be defined is irrelevant. What matters
is what the audience thinks the terminology means.
I agree we must let go of the word "Aether", why fight over a word.
There is no ``we'' here. I grew up in the latter half of 20th century,
by which time, everyone had already let go of the ether.
Instead, either we can simply called it as hidden richness of the
quantum vacuum or another term such as Akashic field.
No, we can't. The quantum vacuum is not simply jargon invented
as catchall phrase that sounds better than ``miscellaneous stuff.''
The vacuum has a rigorous, field theoretic definition. It's not
subject to arbitrary modification if it doesn't serve the purpose
the theory requires by virtue of its derivation.
[...]
What science didn't know is that in the Potentiality or
Unmanifested state of the particle. It can be influenced.
There seems to be another physics governing the unmanifested.
One where negative entropy and holographic template ordering
rules.
The vacuum cannot ``influence particles.'' By virtue of what it is,
it cannot affect the outcome of an experiment.
That's why I mentioned it is hidden richness of the quantum
vacuum that can somehow affect the wave function of the particles.
What you call ``hidden richness'' is an explicit contradiction
of what defines the vacuum. If the vacuum did not disappear from
any measured quantity, then it wouldn't be the vacuum. It would
be a force that you have to quantify in a theory in order to eliminate
it from any definition of the vacuum. Seriously, you cannot
whimsically attribute some mystical property to the vacuum just
to make some unquantifiable belief in something appear less magical.
The vacuum is defined by quantum field theory, so the only way to
make any meaningful statement about an interaction involving
vacuum, is to first have a quantum field theory which quantifies
the interaction. So, either you are claiming you have a quantum
field theory for a new force, or your assertions about the vaccum
are misplaced.
Hmm... you have a point. Say.. you agree totally with the
following description of the quantum vacuum.
"The quantum vacuum is thought of as a seething froth of real
particle-virtual particle pairs going in and out of existence
continuously and very rapidly. Each of these strange pairs
consists of a particle and its antiparticle, one of which has a
negative energy and is thus called "virtual". Out of a
singularity in space, which by definition really is nothing, the
pair simply comes into existence. Why? Because the probability
exists -- as simple as that. The virtual particle with negative
energy is doomed t o a very short life in our real Universe of
positive energy and must immediately recombine with its real
partner -- particle cancels antiparticle and positive energy
cancels negative energy -- back to the singularity. The quantum
vacuum is considered to be a dynamic condition of equilibrium in
which this reversible process is occurring everywhere extremely
quickly."
If it is wrong to use the description "hidden richness of the
quantum vacuum" to refer to qi dynamics. Hmm.. perhaps a whole
new realm or subtle space has to be quantified. Qi is related to
non-locality and entanglement. They should have very close
mechanisms. Since qi particles are quanta of the qi field, then
we may be dealing with a non-local relativistic quantum field
theory. I mentioned relativistic because qi is not limited by
time. This is super hard physics. I guess we will learn more
about qi when we know what the dark matter, dark energy is made
of. I just hope some adventurous physicists will quantify
all this and save us qi healers headaches to derive the physics
of qi which requres cutting edge concepts and mathematical
wizardry.
p6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
08 Jul 2005 12:11:28 PM |
|
|
p6:
Hmm... you have a point. Say.. you agree totally with the
following description of the quantum vacuum.
"The quantum vacuum is thought of as a seething froth of real
particle-virtual particle pairs going in and out of existence
continuously and very rapidly. Each of these strange pairs
consists of a particle and its antiparticle, one of which has a
negative energy and is thus called "virtual". Out of a
singularity in space, which by definition really is nothing, the
pair simply comes into existence. Why? Because the probability
exists -- as simple as that. The virtual particle with negative
energy is doomed t o a very short life in our real Universe of
positive energy and must immediately recombine with its real
partner -- particle cancels antiparticle and positive energy
cancels negative energy -- back to the singularity. The quantum
vacuum is considered to be a dynamic condition of equilibrium in
which this reversible process is occurring everywhere extremely
quickly."
That sounds like a wheelerism, not an actual description of the
vacuum. Here's a better one: A state in the hilbert space with
zero energy.
[...]
of. I just hope some adventurous physicists will quantify
all this and save us qi healers headaches to derive the physics
of qi which requres cutting edge concepts and mathematical
If you really believe such a thing exists, the only way you'll
ever get a physicist to look at it is to come up with an ironclad
experiment that demonstrates the effect under rigorously controlled
conditions. I'd say, if you can collect the $1,000,000.00 prize from
www.randi.org, you'll have a good shot on convincing someone to
at least repeat your experiment.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
06 Jul 2005 05:35:22 PM |
|
|
"p6" <atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120645393.061838.323700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bilge wrote:
p6:
Bilge wrote:
p6:
Bilge wrote:
If one is going to use a term to mean ``quantum vacuum,''
what's
wrong with ``quantum vacuum?'' Writing for one's audience
applies to
physicists, too. An article directed at physicists should
present
the content sing termiology the way physicists have defined it
for
reasons of conveying ideas cleary to other physicists. One's
personal
idea of how something should be defined is irrelevant. What
matters
is what the audience thinks the terminology means.
I agree we must let go of the word "Aether", why fight over a
word.
There is no ``we'' here. I grew up in the latter half of 20th
century,
by which time, everyone had already let go of the ether.
Instead, either we can simply called it as hidden richness of the
quantum vacuum or another term such as Akashic field.
No, we can't. The quantum vacuum is not simply jargon invented
as catchall phrase that sounds better than ``miscellaneous stuff.''
The vacuum has a rigorous, field theoretic definition. It's not
subject to arbitrary modification if it doesn't serve the purpose
the theory requires by virtue of its derivation.
[...]
What science didn't know is that in the Potentiality or
Unmanifested state of the particle. It can be influenced.
There seems to be another physics governing the unmanifested.
One where negative entropy and holographic template ordering
rules.
The vacuum cannot ``influence particles.'' By virtue of what it
is,
it cannot affect the outcome of an experiment.
That's why I mentioned it is hidden richness of the quantum
vacuum that can somehow affect the wave function of the particles.
What you call ``hidden richness'' is an explicit contradiction
of what defines the vacuum. If the vacuum did not disappear from
any measured quantity, then it wouldn't be the vacuum. It would
be a force that you have to quantify in a theory in order to eliminate
it from any definition of the vacuum. Seriously, you cannot
whimsically attribute some mystical property to the vacuum just
to make some unquantifiable belief in something appear less magical.
The vacuum is defined by quantum field theory, so the only way to
make any meaningful statement about an interaction involving
vacuum, is to first have a quantum field theory which quantifies
the interaction. So, either you are claiming you have a quantum
field theory for a new force, or your assertions about the vaccum
are misplaced.
Hmm... you have a point. Say.. you agree totally with the
following description of the quantum vacuum.
"The quantum vacuum is thought of as a seething froth of real
particle-virtual particle pairs going in and out of existence
continuously and very rapidly. Each of these strange pairs
consists of a particle and its antiparticle, one of which has a
negative energy and is thus called "virtual". Out of a
singularity in space, which by definition really is nothing, the
pair simply comes into existence. Why? Because the probability
exists -- as simple as that. The virtual particle with negative
energy is doomed t o a very short life in our real Universe of
positive energy and must immediately recombine with its real
partner -- particle cancels antiparticle and positive energy
cancels negative energy -- back to the singularity. The quantum
vacuum is considered to be a dynamic condition of equilibrium in
which this reversible process is occurring everywhere extremely
quickly."
If it is wrong to use the description "hidden richness of the
quantum vacuum" to refer to qi dynamics.
It might be wise for you do show the existence of your conception Qi in the
first place by taking up either the challenge of Randini or Erle and
claiming the relevant prizes. The fact you chose not to do this and instead
post misconceptions to this forum is very revealing.
Bill
Hmm.. perhaps a whole
new realm or subtle space has to be quantified. Qi is related to
non-locality and entanglement. They should have very close
mechanisms. Since qi particles are quanta of the qi field, then
we may be dealing with a non-local relativistic quantum field
theory. I mentioned relativistic because qi is not limited by
time. This is super hard physics. I guess we will learn more
about qi when we know what the dark matter, dark energy is made
of. I just hope some adventurous physicists will quantify
all this and save us qi healers headaches to derive the physics
of qi which requres cutting edge concepts and mathematical
wizardry.
p6
.
|
|
|
| User: "p6" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
06 Jul 2005 06:10:12 PM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"p6" <atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120645393.061838.323700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bilge wrote:
p6:
Bilge wrote:
p6:
Bilge wrote:
If one is going to use a term to mean ``quantum vacuum,''
what's
wrong with ``quantum vacuum?'' Writing for one's audience
applies to
physicists, too. An article directed at physicists should
present
the content sing termiology the way physicists have defined it
for
reasons of conveying ideas cleary to other physicists. One's
personal
idea of how something should be defined is irrelevant. What
matters
is what the audience thinks the terminology means.
I agree we must let go of the word "Aether", why fight over a
word.
There is no ``we'' here. I grew up in the latter half of 20th
century,
by which time, everyone had already let go of the ether.
Instead, either we can simply called it as hidden richness of the
quantum vacuum or another term such as Akashic field.
No, we can't. The quantum vacuum is not simply jargon invented
as catchall phrase that sounds better than ``miscellaneous stuff.''
The vacuum has a rigorous, field theoretic definition. It's not
subject to arbitrary modification if it doesn't serve the purpose
the theory requires by virtue of its derivation.
[...]
What science didn't know is that in the Potentiality or
Unmanifested state of the particle. It can be influenced.
There seems to be another physics governing the unmanifested.
One where negative entropy and holographic template ordering
rules.
The vacuum cannot ``influence particles.'' By virtue of what it
is,
it cannot affect the outcome of an experiment.
That's why I mentioned it is hidden richness of the quantum
vacuum that can somehow affect the wave function of the particles.
What you call ``hidden richness'' is an explicit contradiction
of what defines the vacuum. If the vacuum did not disappear from
any measured quantity, then it wouldn't be the vacuum. It would
be a force that you have to quantify in a theory in order to eliminate
it from any definition of the vacuum. Seriously, you cannot
whimsically attribute some mystical property to the vacuum just
to make some unquantifiable belief in something appear less magical.
The vacuum is defined by quantum field theory, so the only way to
make any meaningful statement about an interaction involving
vacuum, is to first have a quantum field theory which quantifies
the interaction. So, either you are claiming you have a quantum
field theory for a new force, or your assertions about the vaccum
are misplaced.
Hmm... you have a point. Say.. you agree totally with the
following description of the quantum vacuum.
"The quantum vacuum is thought of as a seething froth of real
particle-virtual particle pairs going in and out of existence
continuously and very rapidly. Each of these strange pairs
consists of a particle and its antiparticle, one of which has a
negative energy and is thus called "virtual". Out of a
singularity in space, which by definition really is nothing, the
pair simply comes into existence. Why? Because the probability
exists -- as simple as that. The virtual particle with negative
energy is doomed t o a very short life in our real Universe of
positive energy and must immediately recombine with its real
partner -- particle cancels antiparticle and positive energy
cancels negative energy -- back to the singularity. The quantum
vacuum is considered to be a dynamic condition of equilibrium in
which this reversible process is occurring everywhere extremely
quickly."
If it is wrong to use the description "hidden richness of the
quantum vacuum" to refer to qi dynamics.
It might be wise for you do show the existence of your conception Qi in the
first place by taking up either the challenge of Randini or Erle and
claiming the relevant prizes. The fact you chose not to do this and instead
post misconceptions to this forum is very revealing.
Bill
It's difficult to get US Visa from asia. The reason our government
working with US immigration gives such strict screening is because
hundreds of thousands used to go there and never came back. They
hide in the US as illegal immigrant.
To get a chance to go there. One must bribe the embassy workers
and pay so much money.
That's not all. Suppose there are 4 of us in the group (I need
seers to accompany me as they are part of the tests) and the
bribing worked and we get to US. I'd only get $250T ($1M/4)
and deduct it with the bribe money and lodging in the US
(especially if Randi drags it longer by keeping us waiting
there and our getting a US lawyer and all). I'd end up with zero.
So I was thinking that if I can understand at least a rough part
of qi physics. I'd spend time sharing it in Larry King Live
interviews and Sci-Am Mag, etc.. and soon the terms I'd use would
be spread. Then the units of Qi (such as Volts, Joule) can be
name after me. But I don't mind if it doesn't happen. What I
want to happen is setting up a big qi healing company and using
Randi to spread it. This means I have to get ready first.
If I get organized first. I can get money close to Bill Gates.
Instead of mere $250T or $25 (after all the deductions). I'd
get $25 Million or even a billion.
I'd also be included in Grammy Awards and can even open up a
movie industry.
If I don't get organized now. The Randi opportunity would be
just one time. Many people wins the Lottery amounting to $50
or so. But do we remember them? Do they own an empire? I'd be
just another lotto winner if I just aim for the $1 million
bucks which would be divided amongst my group and possibly
ending up with so little after paying all the bribe money,
unexpected longer stay and lodging and lawyers.
I'd challenge Randi once I finish a possible degree in physics
majoring in non-local relativistic quantum torsion field theory
(for instance).
I have all time in the world. Those very skilled in psychism are
usually spiritual developed and they are not greedy enough
to aim for Randi's millions. I asked many seers why they don't
want to try Randi. They don't even know who is Randi and doesn't
care about getting the money. Weird but it's true.
p6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
06 Jul 2005 07:03:42 PM |
|
|
"p6" <atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120691412.918665.139430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"p6" <atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120645393.061838.323700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bilge wrote:
p6:
Bilge wrote:
p6:
Bilge wrote:
If one is going to use a term to mean ``quantum vacuum,''
what's
wrong with ``quantum vacuum?'' Writing for one's audience
applies to
physicists, too. An article directed at physicists should
present
the content sing termiology the way physicists have defined
it
for
reasons of conveying ideas cleary to other physicists. One's
personal
idea of how something should be defined is irrelevant. What
matters
is what the audience thinks the terminology means.
I agree we must let go of the word "Aether", why fight over a
word.
There is no ``we'' here. I grew up in the latter half of 20th
century,
by which time, everyone had already let go of the ether.
Instead, either we can simply called it as hidden richness of
the
quantum vacuum or another term such as Akashic field.
No, we can't. The quantum vacuum is not simply jargon invented
as catchall phrase that sounds better than ``miscellaneous
stuff.''
The vacuum has a rigorous, field theoretic definition. It's not
subject to arbitrary modification if it doesn't serve the
purpose
the theory requires by virtue of its derivation.
[...]
What science didn't know is that in the Potentiality or
Unmanifested state of the particle. It can be influenced.
There seems to be another physics governing the unmanifested.
One where negative entropy and holographic template ordering
rules.
The vacuum cannot ``influence particles.'' By virtue of what
it
is,
it cannot affect the outcome of an experiment.
That's why I mentioned it is hidden richness of the quantum
vacuum that can somehow affect the wave function of the particles.
What you call ``hidden richness'' is an explicit contradiction
of what defines the vacuum. If the vacuum did not disappear from
any measured quantity, then it wouldn't be the vacuum. It would
be a force that you have to quantify in a theory in order to
eliminate
it from any definition of the vacuum. Seriously, you cannot
whimsically attribute some mystical property to the vacuum just
to make some unquantifiable belief in something appear less magical.
The vacuum is defined by quantum field theory, so the only way to
make any meaningful statement about an interaction involving
vacuum, is to first have a quantum field theory which quantifies
the interaction. So, either you are claiming you have a quantum
field theory for a new force, or your assertions about the vaccum
are misplaced.
Hmm... you have a point. Say.. you agree totally with the
following description of the quantum vacuum.
"The quantum vacuum is thought of as a seething froth of real
particle-virtual particle pairs going in and out of existence
continuously and very rapidly. Each of these strange pairs
consists of a particle and its antiparticle, one of which has a
negative energy and is thus called "virtual". Out of a
singularity in space, which by definition really is nothing, the
pair simply comes into existence. Why? Because the probability
exists -- as simple as that. The virtual particle with negative
energy is doomed t o a very short life in our real Universe of
positive energy and must immediately recombine with its real
partner -- particle cancels antiparticle and positive energy
cancels negative energy -- back to the singularity. The quantum
vacuum is considered to be a dynamic condition of equilibrium in
which this reversible process is occurring everywhere extremely
quickly."
If it is wrong to use the description "hidden richness of the
quantum vacuum" to refer to qi dynamics.
It might be wise for you do show the existence of your conception Qi in
the
first place by taking up either the challenge of Randini or Erle and
claiming the relevant prizes. The fact you chose not to do this and
instead
post misconceptions to this forum is very revealing.
Bill
It's difficult to get US Visa from asia. The reason our government
working with US immigration gives such strict screening is because
hundreds of thousands used to go there and never came back. They
hide in the US as illegal immigrant.
Erle makes regular visits to Asia - have you written to him?
http://taichiworld.com/
Bill
To get a chance to go there. One must bribe the embassy workers
and pay so much money.
That's not all. Suppose there are 4 of us in the group (I need
seers to accompany me as they are part of the tests) and the
bribing worked and we get to US. I'd only get $250T ($1M/4)
and deduct it with the bribe money and lodging in the US
(especially if Randi drags it longer by keeping us waiting
there and our getting a US lawyer and all). I'd end up with zero.
So I was thinking that if I can understand at least a rough part
of qi physics. I'd spend time sharing it in Larry King Live
interviews and Sci-Am Mag, etc.. and soon the terms I'd use would
be spread. Then the units of Qi (such as Volts, Joule) can be
name after me. But I don't mind if it doesn't happen. What I
want to happen is setting up a big qi healing company and using
Randi to spread it. This means I have to get ready first.
If I get organized first. I can get money close to Bill Gates.
Instead of mere $250T or $25 (after all the deductions). I'd
get $25 Million or even a billion.
I'd also be included in Grammy Awards and can even open up a
movie industry.
If I don't get organized now. The Randi opportunity would be
just one time. Many people wins the Lottery amounting to $50
or so. But do we remember them? Do they own an empire? I'd be
just another lotto winner if I just aim for the $1 million
bucks which would be divided amongst my group and possibly
ending up with so little after paying all the bribe money,
unexpected longer stay and lodging and lawyers.
I'd challenge Randi once I finish a possible degree in physics
majoring in non-local relativistic quantum torsion field theory
(for instance).
I have all time in the world. Those very skilled in psychism are
usually spiritual developed and they are not greedy enough
to aim for Randi's millions. I asked many seers why they don't
want to try Randi. They don't even know who is Randi and doesn't
care about getting the money. Weird but it's true.
p6
.
|
|
|
| User: "p6" |
|
| Title: Re: Aether, the final frontier |
06 Jul 2005 07:06:57 PM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"p6" <atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120691412.918665.139430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"p6" <atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120645393.061838.323700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bilge wrote:
p6:
Bilge wrote:
p6:
Bilge wrote:
If one is going to use a term to mean ``quantum vacuum,''
what's
wrong with ``quantum vacuum?'' Writing for one's audience
applies to
physicists, too. An article directed at physicists should
present
the content sing termiology the way physicists have defined
it
for
reasons of conveying ideas cleary to other physicists. One's
personal
idea of how something should be defined is irrelevant. What
matters
is what the audience thinks the terminology means.
I agree we must let go of the word "Aether", why fight over a
word.
There is no ``we'' here. I grew up in the latter half of 20th
century,
by which time, everyone had already let go of the ether.
Instead, either we can simply called it as hidden richness of
the
quantum vacuum or another term such as Akashic field.
No, we can't. The quantum vacuum is not simply jargon invented
as catchall phrase that sounds better than ``miscellaneous
stuff.''
The vacuum has a rigorous, field theoretic definition. It's not
subject to arbitrary modification if it doesn't serve the
purpose
the theory requires by virtue of its derivation.
[...]
What science didn't know is that in the Potentiality or
Unmanifested state of the particle. It can be influenced.
There seems to be another physics governing the unmanifested.
One where negative entropy and holographic template ordering
rules.
The vacuum cannot ``influence particles.'' By virtue of what
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
