Surprise! Dr. John Bell Liked the Ether!

Paul Stowe:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:50:13 -0000, (Bilge):
wrote:

No, read what was written. Quote,

"Many brilliant & thoughtful people have come to the same
inexcapable conclusion, namely the universe must consist
of a physical medium. ..."

Then I give two examples in print. There's more if you want but the point
was NOT an appeal to authority, but to provide direct evidence of THAT
specific claim!

I'm simply doing the same thing you do, paul. Seems to me that I've
made that comment before.


You've already demonstrated that you haven't the slightest idea what
``quantum'' means. ...

Oh, I know what quantum means as revised.

Oh? What do you think it means? Act in accordance with what you
expect everyone else to do and show explicitly that you do know what
something means, so that I don't have to speculate based upon your
tendency to answer questions as if you don't know what it means.

I also know what quantum meant when the the original idea was founded.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/
DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861697554

OK, then let's simplify this. If you want to use ``quantum'' to mean
what encarta dumbs it down to for mass consumption, then go ahead. Should
I allso assume that you know what the term meabs as you've stated above
and that you are deliberately trying to use semantics rather than physics
to identify what you claim as a quantum theory? I really shouldn't have
to dumb down a concept to the extent that it's meaningless. When you
identify something as a ``quantum theory'', either it's a quantum theory
as quantum theory is described in texbooks on quantum theory, or it is
something else. I see deliberate misrepresentation as indicative of
trying to establish credibility based on misrepresentation. You hate
modern physics anyway, so why do you care to identify with it?

big ones. Classical theories can be about little particles, too. In fact,
classical mechanics is often about little particles. Have you done
anything but call me an asshole when I've mentioned this before - like
post something indicating you realize it has something to do with the
physical implications in changing a poisson bracket to a commutator?

Don't want to be called an asshole, fine, its simple, don't act like
one!

I'm not objecting. I'm just stating a fact. The alternative is
to be deliberately stupid and accept non-sense and handwaving as
a substitute for the details I requested. I'm merely pointing
out your hypocrisy. When I say something, I'm an asshole. When
someone else says the same thing, you jump at the chance to
try and turn it into a big deal as if you hadn't heard it before
from an asshole.

Show that you remember what someone has told you, even IF you
don't agree with it. As to quantum, in its simplest definition it
means discrete (analogous to digital) verses continuous (analog).
Granular verses smooth, etc...

OK. In that case, everything is quantum mechanics. It just used
to be called classical mechanics for some reason you haven't made
very clear, since classical mechanics never employed the idea of
a continuum beyond that of an approximation either.


Uh, right.... Did you acually _read_ any of that book besides verifying
a quote? My guess is, no. If you had, you'd have noticed the word
`ether' itself only appears possibly as many as 10 times in 526 pages
and the comparisons made between condensed matter and the vacuum are
phrased using qualifiers like `conceptually simmilar' and `simulate',
not `conceptually identical' or `replicate'.

What do you think it should be 'identical to' and 'replicate'?

What do I think what should be ``identical to'' and ``replicate''?
Make some attempt to be more specific than ``it''.

If you had spent less time calling me an asshole without reading what
the asshole to whom you are responding with that bit of news wrote,

So now are you calling Harry an asshole too? It was his post I was
responding to, or would that be Fredi? who presented the actual
reference?

Do you have a lot of difficulty with english, or do you just respond
to the sentences in a paragraph individually to avoid the context?

you could have taken my advice and tried to learn something about the
standard model a long time ago. Og course, I realize that I'm merely a
puppet of the physics establisment and couldn't possibly tell you
to look something up ...

Be specific, WHAT references have you given? Go back in Google and
point some out!

Well, here is one to which you responded. Note that I said precisely
what is being raved about now that someone has done some quote mining.
Perhaps you can tell me how what I said below differs in som substantive
way from your newly discovered stone tablets. The message-id of your
response is:

Bilge wrote:
'It's not hard to invent a solid state theory. Just go study the standard
model, change the semantics and figure out how to deal with some
additional problems added by your absolute frame. Most any high energy,
nuclear or solid state physicist recognizes the fact that the standard
model and condensed matter have a lot in common, which makes the standard
model as it stands a lot better as an "ether" theory than any other ether
theory in existence, despite the additional problems that would be
introduced by taking the condensed matter analogy literally.'

In that response, toward the end, bill hobba refers to symmetries and
noether's theorem, which are fundamental to all of what you now find
the the next best thing to sliced bread and to which you reply:
``Abstraction is a very poor substitute for understanding...''.

So, in your opinion, paul, is the ``new found wisdom'' in this pdf
book any different than what you've ignored when I've posted it?
Is symmetry all of a sudden, no longer abstract? Did you ever
bother to look up the standard model and try to understand it
so that you could do precisely what I suggested?

and expect look it up and read it rather than know instinctually that
the whole thing is croc of lies and unphysical mumbo-jumbo, but in
this case, you'll find quite a bit of the erstwhile unphysical croc
of lies in the text being fawned over.

Does it get your goat Bilge? The idea that superfluid vortex lattice
is being worked out??? It sure seems that way.

How exactly could a post in which you try to inform me of something
I told you long ago, ``get my goat''? The joke is on you and everyone
else heralding this newly mined information. I find it rather remarkable
that all of a sudden a an abstraction like SU(4)_C x SU(2)_L x SU(2)_R
found in that book takes on physical meaning when a similar abstraction,
the SU(3) x SU(2)_L x U(1)_Y of the standard model was just meaningless
mathematics. Especially, since the former is merely speculation for
an extenstion to the standard model for which no experimental evidence
exists. Yes, believe it or not, the SU(2)_R really means something
physical and isn't merely there for appearance. Care to guess what that
might be and how one would verify it experimentally? If not, then it
would appear, contrary to your self-righteous claims of objectivity,
that who says something is more important than what he says.


Apparently, you and the rest of the ether constituency thought I
had no idea what I was talking about when I mentioned things like
phase transitions in conjuction with the standard model. Why exactly
didn't you tell me that you were proposing the same ideas and pretend
as if it was of no interest until just now? Is it my breath?

Metaphorically speaking, yes. You're simply dismissive and condescending
of those that propose anything you philosophically don't like.

That isn't the case. I'm dissmisive and condescending when someone
insists I can't employ simple physics to dismiss something. Don't tell me
that I can't use simple physics to point out why what you propose won't
work and I won't respond under the assumption you don't understand basic
physics. I assume that anyone who is going to argue about something have a
level of sophistication above halliday and resnick. If you can't at least
get something to level of an advanced physics undergraduate, I don't think
I'm obligated to take it seriously. If I tell you that something doesn't
conserve angular momentum because [H, L] != 0 and you think that
``abstraction'' doesn't prevent you from showing that your hamiltonian
conserves angular momentum and proceed to try and show that it does, then
I have no choice but to conclude you are cluless. Everything you could
possibly calculate is already in that ``abstraction'', except for the
algebraic errors obtained by calculating something that doesn't need to be
calculated. In that case, I'm going to be dismissive and condescending if
you keep telling me that's a philosophical issue, since it isn't, any
more than 1+1 != 17, is a philosophical issue. If you want to relegate
everything other than simple arithmetic to philosophical issues, then
you'll just have to call my arguments philosophical.


Fredi had no such problem understanding the basic ideas that I proposed.

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought perhaps you had more than some basic idea
to propose. I sort of expect what you would propose as serious physics
to meet the minimum standard I would find acceptable for anything else.
It's not that I don't understand what you propose. I do understand it
and am not particularly interested in having you tell me the obvious
rather than get to the point. When someone thinks I need some simple
arithmetic spelled out, it usually means I'm going to have to explain
anything I might point out as an objection and argue about well-known
physics if I ever expect to have a point addressed. It just isn't worth
the effort to convince someone he hasn't thought of everything when
he's determined to believe that the problem lies with some simple
arithmetic as if the average physicist has difficulty with that.

He certainly does not agree with all of'em but that's fair.
Misrepresenting the presented ideas person position isn't!

I can't parse that.

By any objective measure I am neither uneducated or dim-witted, and if you
others choose to attempt to treat me (and others) as such, in a rude
and dismissive manner, don't be surprised if we don't take it on the
chin forever.I for one have choosen to treat others in the same manner
as the treatment being received. Thus, clean up you act and I'll be glad
to do the same. In fact, ecstatic!

That isn't true, paul. When I ask you to support something and provide
details, you get ****ed off. Whether that is because you fail to understand
the questions and why you didn't answer them, I can't say, but you don't
want to know, either. You seem to think physicists spent all of their
time in school going to parties or something other than studying physics.
At least that what your responses indicate when you assume the difference
in the questions in which physicists are interested and what you are
proposing lies with some philosophical difference rather than the level
you think is adequate to address something. The fact is, that you just
don't seem to grasp the level at which physicists are trying to answer
questions about physics. It's not a matter of philosophy. The issue
is that you don't even acknowledge the possibility that physics could
explain nature at the level it already does. If you did, it wouldn't
be impossible to explain the questions to you.

If you want to keep calling me an asshole, go right ahead. I can explain
anything I post to whatever detail is necessary to someone who is
intereseted in understanding it and doesn't resort to calling some new
mathematical symbol, a meaningless abstraction, to try and justify
dismissing it. By contrast, you are unwilling to post even the most basic
assumptions from which you claim results follow. I expect a hell of a lot
less from you than you seem to expect from any physicist. At least I'm
willing to start from the assumptions and try and derive the results. You
won't even attempt to follow a complete derivations from the assumptions
to the results. I imagine you'd really be put out if I expected you
to live up to what you demand and aren't planning to even consider.

That means, have the decency to at least represent the person's opinions
and ideas correctly, even IF you personally don't agree with them.

Present something less vague and it will be easier to cut through
the bull****. Personally, I think your strategy is to be as vague
as possible in order to make those accusations and avoid ever getting
to the point. I don't need someone to show me how to write an expansion
for \exp(-kx) and other trivial mathematics. I'd prefer being given the
assumptions from which the expression was allegedly obtained and doing
the rest myself.

Paul Stowe:

I agree. Once one realizes this simple 'fact' they also realize there is
no such thing as non-aether theory. Just ones that refuse to say the word
but still MUST incoorporate the medium...

Does that mean you're going to abandon what you have been calling an
ether theory and embrace quantum field theory just as soon as you can
use the word the ether to refer to the vacuum? If not, then you are
barking up the wrong tree in trying to conflate an ether with the vacuum.
The vacuum is never going have the simplisitic picture you want. Simply
trying to say that you don't think your ether is ``simple'' doesn't
change anything. Your concept of a medium just doesn't translate to
the vacuum in any way that doesn't make a mockery of the term ``medium''.

Paul Stowe:

I agree. Once one realizes this simple 'fact' they also realize there is
no such thing as non-aether theory. Just ones that refuse to say the word
but still MUST incoorporate the medium...

Does that mean you're going to abandon what you have been calling an
ether theory and embrace quantum field theory just as soon as you can
use the word the ether to refer to the vacuum? If not, then you are
barking up the wrong tree in trying to conflate an ether with the vacuum.
The vacuum is never going have the simplisitic picture you want. Simply
trying to say that you don't think your ether is ``simple'' doesn't
change anything. Your concept of a medium just doesn't translate to
the vacuum in any way that doesn't make a mockery of the term ``medium''.

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 23:32:49 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:
|
| "Paul Stowe" wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:50:13 -0000,

| (Bilge)
| | wrote:
|
| [snip]
|
| | It is a universal medium and matter is a distinct manifiestation
| |
| | That, he does not say as far as I can determine. To the best I can
tell
| | he uses the word ``ether'' as a synonym for ``quantum vacuum'' without
| | ever suggesting any relationship to the word ``ether'' as you use it
to
| | mean a physical medium. I think you're quote mining again and if I
asked
| | you to explain just how your idea of an ether bore any resemblence to
| | the quantum vacuum, I doubt I'd receive a response that answered that
| | question other than by modifying ``asshole'' to something like,
``huge,
| | duplicitous, lying asshole with no integrity''. That sort of thing
| | probably affects my reputation is several third world countries where
| | voodoo is popular and possibly even in a third world continent like
| | antarctica, where ice and snow are unpopular, but prevalent.
| |
|
http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=9... g.net&rnum=1
|
http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=t...4ax.com&rnum=2
|
| I like this one from the above link; how did I miss this that Gregory
Hansen
| wrote?
|
| " ... as easily as an electron does. Electrons and positrons
| as swirls in an aether and interacting by electromagnetic
| fields. There's huge regions of theory space there that
| I think haven't been explored very well, and I'll bet we could
| come up with a theory that's simultaneously blasphemous to
| both relativists and aetherists."
|
| I like that ...
|
| So do I. As do I like Feynman's oft-stated snake swallowing it own tail
| (a very good discription of you know what... : )
|
| Paul Stowe"
|
| Yep, my vacuum charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) seems to get blasted from both
| sides sometimes. ;-) Strangely enough mostly from the relativists.
|
| Not strange at all.
|
| And I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with relativity
| other than maybe the explanation of its source.
|
| Ditto... As I've said many times.
|
| IMHO, Volovik is on the case big time. He has got some really good
ideas about
| the quantum vacuum.
|
| Anyone chasing a superfluidic vortex lattice IS on the case, big time...
| I like J. Michael Straczynski 's comment about God's first words to Sean
| Astin character, "Chaos Theory"...
|
| I am hoping the "aetherists" catch on to what he is presenting. There
is
| a vacuum medium and it is relativistic.
|
| I agree. Once one realizes this simple 'fact' they also realize there is
| no such thing as non-aether theory. Just ones that refuse to say the
word
| but still MUST incoorporate the medium...
|
| I am sure that you think the same way.
|
| Yes,
|
| And for some strange reason some people seem to think that quantum
*mechanics*
| isn't mechanical.
|
| Isn't that the truth.
|
| Strange to say the least. I just don't know where that comes from.
|
| If you can answer that question (actually it the "shut up and calculate"
| syndrome) you will have resloved most of the chasm that separates
aetherist
| from modernist.
|
| The Universe is mechanical.
|
| Sadly many simply won't accept that concept.

Well, I was going to reply to Bilge's reply to this but since he has plonked
me because of my vacuum charge idea I guess there is no point. I get the
strong impression that he has painted a picture in his mind that you have
been talking about something else entirely different from what we just said
above. ???

It seems so simple to me. Quantum entities (I guess your ultra-mundane
particles) exist forever and form a "vacuum" equilibrium configuration.
Matter is made from the same stuff; just a special configuration that is the
exception instead of the rule but still following some of the rules. Extra
compact dimensions may be involved.

FrediFizzx

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 23:32:49 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:
|
| "Paul Stowe" wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:50:13 -0000,

| (Bilge)
| | wrote:
|
| [snip]
|
| | It is a universal medium and matter is a distinct manifiestation
| |
| | That, he does not say as far as I can determine. To the best I can
tell
| | he uses the word ``ether'' as a synonym for ``quantum vacuum'' without
| | ever suggesting any relationship to the word ``ether'' as you use it
to
| | mean a physical medium. I think you're quote mining again and if I
asked
| | you to explain just how your idea of an ether bore any resemblence to
| | the quantum vacuum, I doubt I'd receive a response that answered that
| | question other than by modifying ``asshole'' to something like,
``huge,
| | duplicitous, lying asshole with no integrity''. That sort of thing
| | probably affects my reputation is several third world countries where
| | voodoo is popular and possibly even in a third world continent like
| | antarctica, where ice and snow are unpopular, but prevalent.
| |
|
http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=9... g.net&rnum=1
|
http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=t...4ax.com&rnum=2
|
| I like this one from the above link; how did I miss this that Gregory
Hansen
| wrote?
|
| " ... as easily as an electron does. Electrons and positrons
| as swirls in an aether and interacting by electromagnetic
| fields. There's huge regions of theory space there that
| I think haven't been explored very well, and I'll bet we could
| come up with a theory that's simultaneously blasphemous to
| both relativists and aetherists."
|
| I like that ...
|
| So do I. As do I like Feynman's oft-stated snake swallowing it own tail
| (a very good discription of you know what... : )
|
| Paul Stowe"
|
| Yep, my vacuum charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) seems to get blasted from both
| sides sometimes. ;-) Strangely enough mostly from the relativists.
|
| Not strange at all.
|
| And I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with relativity
| other than maybe the explanation of its source.
|
| Ditto... As I've said many times.
|
| IMHO, Volovik is on the case big time. He has got some really good
ideas about
| the quantum vacuum.
|
| Anyone chasing a superfluidic vortex lattice IS on the case, big time...
| I like J. Michael Straczynski 's comment about God's first words to Sean
| Astin character, "Chaos Theory"...
|
| I am hoping the "aetherists" catch on to what he is presenting. There
is
| a vacuum medium and it is relativistic.
|
| I agree. Once one realizes this simple 'fact' they also realize there is
| no such thing as non-aether theory. Just ones that refuse to say the
word
| but still MUST incoorporate the medium...
|
| I am sure that you think the same way.
|
| Yes,
|
| And for some strange reason some people seem to think that quantum
*mechanics*
| isn't mechanical.
|
| Isn't that the truth.
|
| Strange to say the least. I just don't know where that comes from.
|
| If you can answer that question (actually it the "shut up and calculate"
| syndrome) you will have resloved most of the chasm that separates
aetherist
| from modernist.
|
| The Universe is mechanical.
|
| Sadly many simply won't accept that concept.

Well, I was going to reply to Bilge's reply to this but since he has plonked
me because of my vacuum charge idea I guess there is no point. I get the
strong impression that he has painted a picture in his mind that you have
been talking about something else entirely different from what we just said
above. ???

It seems so simple to me. Quantum entities (I guess your ultra-mundane
particles) exist forever and form a "vacuum" equilibrium configuration.
Matter is made from the same stuff; just a special configuration that is the
exception instead of the rule but still following some of the rules. Extra
compact dimensions may be involved.

FrediFizzx

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 22:42:33 -0700, "FrediFizzx" wrote:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
.. .

[Snip...]

| The Universe is mechanical.
|
| Sadly many simply won't accept that concept.

Well, I was going to reply to Bilge's reply to this but since he
has plonked me because of my vacuum charge idea I guess there is
no point. I get the strong impression that he has painted a
picture in his mind that you have been talking about something
else entirely different from what we just said above. ???

I get the impression that we (Bilge & I) have no common base. I
understand that different people think differently. Some (like
myself [Lefty]) think pictorially, this type use mental imagery to
'see' phenomenological processes. Once these type of people (Tesla
was one of these) can 'see' the process then they set out to quantify
it mathematically. Understanding how the process works is first.
Others think mathematically, NOT pictorially, and examine equations
and follow them, usually to the exclusion of any conceptual process
that they might be tied to. The mathematics, not the concept of
process dominates and comes first in their mind. Still others fall
in the spectrum between the extremes. The problem with Bilge is,
as you mention, he apparently never tried to understand the overall
framework concepts upon which I view the system. I've tried hard
many times to convey this but to no avail. Not only that, he keeps
coming back with comments which explicitly seem to indicate that
he ignored what was told him and trys to suggest opposite or silly
points that are totally out of the park. For example, how many times
have I told him that the vortex lattice can be treated as a pseudo
particluate medium. When done in this manner the vortex entities
can be considered 'particles' but certainly contain caharacteristics
NOT found in simple hard sphere particles. Since these vortices
MUST be made of some underlying fluidic medium, then there also must
exist an sub-spacial medium (if we treat the vortices of the lattice
as a medium also obviously the same 'stuff') which will have basic
characteristics different THAN the vortex lattice pseudo particulate
media it constructs.

Yet, in the end, his comments totally ignore this distinct duality.
I mention that I think that propagating light in free-space has a
non-zero attenuation coefficient, possibly losing energy (over vast
distances on the order of many billions of light years). This, as
we know from radiation transport through other materials does NOT,
of necessity, require light to be massive. Only that the medium
be attuative. Yet he comes back at me suggesting that I never said
or suggested any such thing. ... etc.

I honestly don't think we (he & I) can communicate as long as he refuses
to attempt to understand (at least) the conceptual foundational basis
upon which I am coming from. Now, like you, he certainly doesn't
have to buy or even agree with this but at least there is a common
frame from which to discuss such disagreements.

Conversely, it is also true that much of what he says to me makes no
sense. probably because of lack of context. Thus, the comment about
no common basis. It is true that my background is nuclear engineering
with a specialty in ionizing radiation transport. But fluid dynamics
was another area of keen interest in school (and the toughest courses
I even took). However, like yourself, theoretical physics is also a
keen interest, and, a serious 'hobby'.

It seems so simple to me. Quantum entities (I guess your ultra-mundane
particles) exist forever and form a "vacuum" equilibrium configuration.

Yes. These form patterns (such as the vortex lattice) which in turn
interact with each other (in a distinct quantized manner), which,
in turn, creates your definition. The very reason 'I think' gravity
cannot be directly integrated with this quantum behavior is specifically
BECAUSE it springs forth from the sub-spacial particle intractions with
the vortices structures. This isn't governed by the pseudo particulate
medium rules upon which QM interaction apply. Thus gravity is by its
very nature, the 'odd man out'.

Matter is made from the same stuff; just a special configuration that
is the exception instead of the rule but still following some of the
rules. Extra compact dimensions may be involved.

There exists for me an adversion to the term 'extra-compacted dimensions'.
When I hear this it cries out 'we don't know enough yet' technobabble!
Oh well, I can however live with it for now

Paul Stowe

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 22:42:33 -0700, "FrediFizzx" wrote:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
.. .

[Snip...]

| The Universe is mechanical.
|
| Sadly many simply won't accept that concept.

Well, I was going to reply to Bilge's reply to this but since he
has plonked me because of my vacuum charge idea I guess there is
no point. I get the strong impression that he has painted a
picture in his mind that you have been talking about something
else entirely different from what we just said above. ???

I get the impression that we (Bilge & I) have no common base. I
understand that different people think differently. Some (like
myself [Lefty]) think pictorially, this type use mental imagery to
'see' phenomenological processes. Once these type of people (Tesla
was one of these) can 'see' the process then they set out to quantify
it mathematically. Understanding how the process works is first.
Others think mathematically, NOT pictorially, and examine equations
and follow them, usually to the exclusion of any conceptual process
that they might be tied to. The mathematics, not the concept of
process dominates and comes first in their mind. Still others fall
in the spectrum between the extremes. The problem with Bilge is,
as you mention, he apparently never tried to understand the overall
framework concepts upon which I view the system. I've tried hard
many times to convey this but to no avail. Not only that, he keeps
coming back with comments which explicitly seem to indicate that
he ignored what was told him and trys to suggest opposite or silly
points that are totally out of the park. For example, how many times
have I told him that the vortex lattice can be treated as a pseudo
particluate medium. When done in this manner the vortex entities
can be considered 'particles' but certainly contain caharacteristics
NOT found in simple hard sphere particles. Since these vortices
MUST be made of some underlying fluidic medium, then there also must
exist an sub-spacial medium (if we treat the vortices of the lattice
as a medium also obviously the same 'stuff') which will have basic
characteristics different THAN the vortex lattice pseudo particulate
media it constructs.

Yet, in the end, his comments totally ignore this distinct duality.
I mention that I think that propagating light in free-space has a
non-zero attenuation coefficient, possibly losing energy (over vast
distances on the order of many billions of light years). This, as
we know from radiation transport through other materials does NOT,
of necessity, require light to be massive. Only that the medium
be attuative. Yet he comes back at me suggesting that I never said
or suggested any such thing. ... etc.

I honestly don't think we (he & I) can communicate as long as he refuses
to attempt to understand (at least) the conceptual foundational basis
upon which I am coming from. Now, like you, he certainly doesn't
have to buy or even agree with this but at least there is a common
frame from which to discuss such disagreements.

Conversely, it is also true that much of what he says to me makes no
sense. probably because of lack of context. Thus, the comment about
no common basis. It is true that my background is nuclear engineering
with a specialty in ionizing radiation transport. But fluid dynamics
was another area of keen interest in school (and the toughest courses
I even took). However, like yourself, theoretical physics is also a
keen interest, and, a serious 'hobby'.

It seems so simple to me. Quantum entities (I guess your ultra-mundane
particles) exist forever and form a "vacuum" equilibrium configuration.

Yes. These form patterns (such as the vortex lattice) which in turn
interact with each other (in a distinct quantized manner), which,
in turn, creates your definition. The very reason 'I think' gravity
cannot be directly integrated with this quantum behavior is specifically
BECAUSE it springs forth from the sub-spacial particle intractions with
the vortices structures. This isn't governed by the pseudo particulate
medium rules upon which QM interaction apply. Thus gravity is by its
very nature, the 'odd man out'.

Matter is made from the same stuff; just a special configuration that
is the exception instead of the rule but still following some of the
rules. Extra compact dimensions may be involved.

There exists for me an adversion to the term 'extra-compacted dimensions'.
When I hear this it cries out 'we don't know enough yet' technobabble!
Oh well, I can however live with it for now

Paul Stowe

To Paul Stowe:

Looks like in your exchange with 'Bilge', you're encountering the
all-too-familiar problem of the 'seams and rivets' guys. They appear
unable or unwilling to see in overall concepts. They remain fixated
solely on details and minutae, the 'seams and rivets' of the statue,
never taking time out to stand back and look at the overview of the
'statue'.
They see matter as aggregates of discrete 'particles'
rather than seeing those 'particles' as PROCESSES in a common,
underlying medium or substrate. (Think of eddies and whorls in a river
caused by submerged boulders in the riverbed; the eddies and whorls
_appear_ as fixed, congruent entities, yet they are processes of the
flowing river. Same with a candle flame in its convective flow.)

As mentioned in a previous post, the archaic and stigmatized term
'ether' needs to be dumped in favor of a modern definitive term for the
spatial medium. 'Ether' puts people to sleep.g
oc

To Paul Stowe:

Looks like in your exchange with 'Bilge', you're encountering the
all-too-familiar problem of the 'seams and rivets' guys. They appear
unable or unwilling to see in overall concepts. They remain fixated
solely on details and minutae, the 'seams and rivets' of the statue,
never taking time out to stand back and look at the overview of the
'statue'.
They see matter as aggregates of discrete 'particles'
rather than seeing those 'particles' as PROCESSES in a common,
underlying medium or substrate. (Think of eddies and whorls in a river
caused by submerged boulders in the riverbed; the eddies and whorls
_appear_ as fixed, congruent entities, yet they are processes of the
flowing river. Same with a candle flame in its convective flow.)

As mentioned in a previous post, the archaic and stigmatized term
'ether' needs to be dumped in favor of a modern definitive term for the
spatial medium. 'Ether' puts people to sleep.g
oc

Paul Stowe:

in the spectrum between the extremes. The problem with Bilge is,
as you mention, he apparently never tried to understand the overall
framework concepts upon which I view the system.

That's self-serving bull****. The reason I think your entire concept
of nature is ridiculous is precisely because I understand a lot more
of the overall framework than you seem to think exists. Your completely
naive and superficial view of a physical process is the problem. To
the best I can determine, you really have no idea what the strong and
weak interaction are or that it might be necessary to explain them.
Don't kid yourself about having some profound understanding of some deep
concept. You don't. So far, it hasn't been possible to explain the
more superficial ones like what a neutrino is and what it has to do
with anything.

The difference between a ``concept person'' and a physicist, is that
a physicist is a ``concept person'' who applies concepts to physical
things to explain them. If you just want to have ``concepts'', get a
job writing for star trek.

I've tried hard
many times to convey this but to no avail. Not only that, he keeps
coming back with comments which explicitly seem to indicate that
he ignored what was told him and trys to suggest opposite or silly
points that are totally out of the park. For example, how many times
have I told him that the vortex lattice can be treated as a pseudo
particluate medium.

Probably a zillion. However, the number of times you've actually
shown you can do that by using for something that could reproduce an
experimental number is zero. You can tell me a zillion more times
and your ``vortex lattice'' would still means the same thing as
``tooth fairy''.

When done in this manner the vortex entities
can be considered 'particles' but certainly contain caharacteristics
NOT found in simple hard sphere particles.

Excuse me if I consider the theory of the ``hard spheres'' themselves
to be the only theory which is relevant and that is what you seem to
think is satisfactory as an assumption. Anyone can make up a theory
by starting with some imaginary entity that acts as nothing but a
container for empirically determined properites.

Since these vortices
MUST be made of some underlying fluidic medium, then there also must
exist an sub-spacial medium (if we treat the vortices of the lattice
as a medium also obviously the same 'stuff') which will have basic
characteristics different THAN the vortex lattice pseudo particulate
media it constructs.

So far, you haven't managed to construct a particle that way.

Yet, in the end, his comments totally ignore this distinct duality.
I mention that I think that propagating light in free-space has a
non-zero attenuation coefficient, possibly losing energy (over vast
distances on the order of many billions of light years). This, as
we know from radiation transport through other materials does NOT,
of necessity, require light to be massive. Only that the medium
be attuative. Yet he comes back at me suggesting that I never said
or suggested any such thing. ... etc.

Oh. Did I say that? If so, then what I should have said was you're
explanation at least doubled the number of free parameters you have
available to describe the single parameter relevant to E&M. You should
be able to find a fit.

I honestly don't think we (he & I) can communicate as long as he refuses
to attempt to understand (at least) the conceptual foundational basis
upon which I am coming from. Now, like you, he certainly doesn't
have to buy or even agree with this but at least there is a common
frame from which to discuss such disagreements.

I understand your concepts better than you do, paul. That's why it's
so obvious that you are never going to explain anything even to the
extent of the explanations already in existence.

Conversely, it is also true that much of what he says to me makes no
sense. probably because of lack of context. Thus, the comment about
no common basis. It is true that my background is nuclear engineering
with a specialty in ionizing radiation transport.

Which makes it all the more odd that you seem to lack any basic
understanding of nuclear processes.

But fluid dynamics
was another area of keen interest in school (and the toughest courses
I even took). However, like yourself, theoretical physics is also a
keen interest, and, a serious 'hobby'.

It seems so simple to me. Quantum entities (I guess your ultra-mundane
particles) exist forever and form a "vacuum" equilibrium configuration.

Yes. These form patterns (such as the vortex lattice) which in turn
interact with each other (in a distinct quantized manner), which,
in turn, creates your definition.

That probably illustrates the difference in what you think constitutes
an explanation and what is acceptable. Physicists already have a theory
that does that if one just assumes all of the ingredients have always
existed.

The very reason 'I think' gravity
cannot be directly integrated with this quantum behavior is specifically
BECAUSE it springs forth from the sub-spacial particle intractions with
the vortices structures.

At the level you are talking about, quantum theory is not problematic.
Hawking used quantum field theory to derive hawking radiation. Textbooks
exist for quantum field theory in curved spacetime (``Quantum Field Theory
in Curved Spacetime'', Fulling, S.A., for example). The issues with gravity
and quantum theory are more fundamental than you seem to have considered
necessary as part of an explanation. For example, you simply assume space
and time exist and your medium is ``in it''. The idea of explaining space
and time and how your medium got there in the first place, doesn't seem
to have crossed your mind.

Matter is made from the same stuff; just a special configuration that
is the exception instead of the rule but still following some of the
rules. Extra compact dimensions may be involved.

There exists for me an adversion to the term 'extra-compacted dimensions'.
When I hear this it cries out 'we don't know enough yet' technobabble!
Oh well, I can however live with it for now

It might be technobabble or it might not. The main difference between
that ``technobabble'' and your ``technobabble'', is that I can ask someone
who studies the compactified dimension ``technobabble'' what it all means
and get an answer in terms of physical quantities that relate to the
real universe. Do you have some criteria on originality that renders
ideas unoriginal if the idea can be used to do calculations?