The Wilson Theory of Space.

Hi Eric_Gisse, It litterally takes you a few seconds to stalk me,
" read " my post and construct a " reply ".
I'd revoke your high school diploma, if I could.

On Feb 19, 9:20 pm, Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Eric_Gisse, It litterally takes you a few seconds to stalk me,
" read " my post and construct a " reply ".
I'd revoke your high school diploma, if I could.

At least I have one.

On 20 Feb 2007 06:20:57 GMT, Jeff…Relf wrote:

Hi Eric_Gisse, It litterally takes you a few seconds to stalk me,
" read " my post and construct a " reply ".
I'd revoke your high school diploma, if I could.

Why do you bother to answer the little ****?

Actually he's pretty right for once though. You were raving....

On Feb 19, 11:54 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 20 Feb 2007 06:20:57 GMT, Jeff...Relf wrote:

Hi Eric_Gisse, It litterally takes you a few seconds to stalk me,
" read " my post and construct a " reply ".
I'd revoke your high school diploma, if I could.

Why do you bother to answer the little ****?

For the same reason you post under a pseudonym and lie routinely.


Actually he's pretty right for once though. You were raving....

How can liht fare throuh a nort-hole if it's nothing? It doesn't.

Anyway, as there are three dimensions I don't expect any whit to
exhibit plane waves; one should trace a cuff or somesuch.

The univers should be finite; after some distanse between two charges
(e+ and e-), they become degenerato with the vacuum/univers and
"annihilat" the other way. The field of one whit must be definen by
that of another whit; there is no behind when there is no work. If
you put one charge in its own univers, you may as well write in
whatever size it has.

-Aut

"Jeff.Relf" wrote in message
...


Mass is the fifth spatial dimension.


Hahahaha.

What happened to temperature, k00kboi?

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:HvuCh.303967$aJ.222662@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:


The charge of an electron does not reside within the electron. The
electric
field is the distortion in the ether created by the absolute motion of
the
electron in the ether. This model elinimate the question what makes a
field
and resolves the infinity problems exist in QED.

Ken Seto



What specific infinity problems in QED are you referring to Seto?

The infinity problems that are inherent in the QED equations and these
problems were eliminated by the dubious mathematical trick of
re-normalization. The reason why the re-normalization trick works is because
that the charge does not reside within the electron in the first place. What
this mean is that there was no infinity problem to begin with.

Is Endless Discussion (ED syndrome) bad? No. Better to Endlessly
Discuss issues that be nonexistent.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:%8DCh.5320$PD2.1711@attbi_s22...
kenseto wrote:

The infinity problems that are inherent in the QED equations...


Such as?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum...ange_equations

Where are you referring to, Seto?

The equations in this link are re-normalized equations. The original qed
equations before re-normalization contains infinities due to the
misconception-conception that the charge of the particle resides within the
particle. When the charge is residing within the electron its self energy
will become infinite as the distance approaches zero.

On Feb 19, 5:40 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them.

Imagine if there were only one piece of matter in the whole universe, a single
electron.

How would you know that it was an electron if it was the only particle
anywhere?

We know that the electron has an electric field around itself that will repel
like charges and attract unlike ones.

How can it when it's the only particle in the universe?

Its strength tapers off with distance
according to an inverse square law. In the physical sense, we have no idea what
makes a 'field'.

There is no field at all since there can be no test particles to probe
it.

Now the question we must ask is, what happens as we move further and further
away from the electron.

As what moves further and further from the "whatever it is"?

Does its field strength become infintely weaker and weaker?

How would you be able to tell?

...or is there a
point where it can be reduced no more and becomes fragmented.
In other words, is there a point where the electron field becomes so weak that
it can be no longer be reduced in strength?

Yes, it's called zero.

Can a point be reached where the
field of the electron doesn't permanently exist at all?

Yes, at infinity. That is if you could measure it, but with only one
electron, I guess you're out of luck.


ARE FIELDS QUANTIZED?

Some are, some aren't.

Would there be regions of space where 'field quanta' are so rare that most of
that region literally consists of 'absolutely nothing'?

In space there are gravitational 'fields', electric fields, magnetic fields and
possibly a few that we know nothing about.. No matter where we go in the
universe, we will presumeably see distant stars and fall freely under the
influence of some gravitational system....so EM is reaching us regularly.
....but is it possible that in very remote space, the fields that make up EM
and gravity become literally 'full of holes'?

Bad examples. EM and gravity have infinite ranges.

My hypothesis says that 'empty' space somewhat resembles felted fibre or foam
polystyrene, where the fibrous or plastic bits resemble the field 'quanta'
whilst the holes consist of genuine 'nothing'. The holes are very temporary
since EM carrying its own fields passes through them continuously, partially
destroying them.

Hardly a new idea. It seems you got to that party a bit late.

Because 'Wilsonian nort-holes' consist of nothing, they have no properties, no
geometry, no time. The concept of an infinite nort-hole presents no real
problem since the word 'nothing' in reality implies a genuine 'absence of
anything' and without anything, the concept of infinity doesn't really exist.

But they have to be bounded by something. What are you a pessimist?
Thinking only of the holes and not what bounds them.

It is possible that huge nort-holes separate all the individual universes that
make up space.

Anything's possible. Even you coming up with some reasonable
physics. But I'm not exactly holding my breath.

Light travels through a nort-hole purely ballistically since there is no
intrinsic dielectric constant or magnetic permeability there. Maxwell's
equations have no relevance in a nort-hole.

Light couldn't travel through the hole at all. It would have to stay
on the boundary. That's the only place where space is defined.

Any attempt to investigate a nort-hole will destroy it.

You could never observe them. Period.

The 'Wilson Density Threshold' is that at which nort-holes first start to
appear. (Note: 'density' refers to both matter and fields, here)
As the density decreases, so does the proportion of 'nothing' in any volume.

Gotta love your sense of modesty.

Indeed, since nort-holes possess no spatial properties, the true volume of what
we presently refer to as 'empty space' must be redefined to mean 'that volume
actually occupied by field quanta which exist there'. It is a distinct
possibility that lengths as well as volumes are effectively 'contracted' in
most of intergalactic space.

Whatever that means.