The Aether and the Trolls

nightbat wrote

Paul Stowe wrote:

On 4 Jun 2005 17:59:32 -0700, "Curious"
wrote:



FrediFizzx wrote:
"Curious" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
|
| Robert Kolker wrote:
| Paul Stowe wrote:
| On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 09:06:03 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote:
|
|
| wrote:
|
| The story you're about to read is fiction. The characters
| have been changed, but the problem is real.
|
| Once upon a time, an alien race called the Gludzu
|
| Idiot.
|
|
| Imbecile!
|
|
|
| Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
| http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
| No aether
|
|
| LET = SR! LET = aether...
|
|
| http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
| http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
| No Lorentz violation
|
|
| LET = SR!
|
| What a dolt you are!!!
|
| If a non-aether theory predicts as well or better than an aether
theory,
|
| It doesn't. The aether accounts for a lot which is otherwise
| inexplicable, and which SR simply assumes - for example, c
| That was easy.

You are catching on. ;-) A lot of these old-timers (I am almost one
myself. LoL) and most of the new-timers want to cling to the *old*
definitions and concepts of aether from before the turn of the last
century. Fortunately there is at least one high level physicist,
Volovik, that is not afraid to call it like it really is. I quote
Volovik from the conclusion of "The Universe in a Helium Droplet";

"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."

Hey WOW! That's EXACTLY what I've been thinking/saying!!!! Except that
I would suspect that the aether itself in a passive sense (rather than
its motion alone) contributes to the force of gravity, if gravity is
virtually instantaneous, and except also that they now rename the
aether the quantum vacuum. Is this face-saving or side-step selling to
peers?


Now, our naive research indicates that a relativistic medium that fits
the experimental evidence leading to the Standard Model can really only
work properly via a modified Dirac Sea which is really a concept of dual
space-time. The duality concept in physics is very important; why not
dual space-times?


But why can't the motion/particle that you want to put into dual space,
why can't it alternatively be put into a non-reactive mode? I'm not
against dual space - just not sure why you are so sure that it has to
be dual space. Perhaps the physics... but I could purley conceptually
imagine an aether motion becoming chargeless, spinless, motionless,
without attraction or repulsion - and possibly even *appear* to be
massless, if its harmonics were placed such that another aether motion
could pass right between it (although if the entire aether had mass
that would also consitute a neutral place for mass in the crowd
wouldn't it). This would be effectively out of the picture.

| then either the aether does not exist, or the hypothesis that it
does
| exist is unnecessary. It can be eliminated without harm, as it does
|
| That's a bit of an assumption! You think because it isn't needed now,
| it'll never exist? It'd be wise to remember that it may exist,
wouldn't
| it? Otherwise you may get stubbornly stupid about it if/when the need
| for it arises.
| Occam's razor doesn't suggest being close-minded about it. It just
| tells you where to put your money for now.

If Volovik is correct (which I highly suspect that he is), then the
Standard Model of particle physics cannot exist without the modern
definition of ether since all particles are excitations of this medium.
Eliminate this relativistic medium then you would have to eliminate the
Standard Model. That would be a bummer. ;-)

Yeah, it sure would!!! :-))

If you're interested in a 526 page 'paper' I have Volovik book which
was first published in free downloadable PDF form before being
withdrawn. Let me know.

Paul Stowe

nightbat

Paul, Officer oc and few of us in alt.astronomy might like a per
your cite reference PDF form peek if possible. And why was it withdrawn,
google antics or science peer net objection?

ponder on,
the nightbat