The Aether Reality

reply to post by buddhasystem

I think a reasonable guideline is to actually read something written in fairly plain English. Absent that, you can forget about discussions being productive. My post was clear enough. It's lack of effort on the reader's part that you should be concerned about.

Because the term "FACEPALM" by itself provides absolute clarity in the way of educating, correcting, refuting, or otherwise constructively adding to Mary Rose's attempts to learn. If you know so much more, then by all means, share what you know as pertains to the subject matter. That doesn't include acting like a jackass because someone doesn't happen to be a l337 n00b in the area you are. You act more like a 17 year old gamer than a well-cultured physicist.

Please, show some respect for our attempts to learn and we'll show respect for your attempts to teach. Otherwise, go to another forum that satisfies your high-and-mighty tastes in physics discussions. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. And before you mention it, my point here is not the knowledgeability others display, it's the attitude you react with.

Again, thank you for your consideration.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I think a reasonable guideline is to actually read something written in fairly plain English. Absent that, you can forget about discussions being productive. My post was clear enough. It's lack of effort on the reader's part that you should be concerned about.

Because the term "FACEPALM" by itself provides absolute clarity in the way of educating, correcting, refuting, or otherwise constructively adding to Mary Rose's attempts to learn. If you know so much more, then by all means, share what you know as pertains to the subject matter.

I've done that part. If I say "A is different from B", and Mary answers "so you admit that A is equivalent to B", the only appropriate reaction is FACEPALM. I actually said "A is dramatically different from B". Sometimes, one needs to actually read. Feel free to consider the FACEPALM a motivational tool. Feel-good attitude only gets you so far.

reply to post by buddhasystem


And here-have-a-fistful-of-feces-as-a-reward-for-the-idiocy-I-feel-you-have-displayed sets you a long way back, regarding the number of people likely to listen to you. I'm fairly certain Ghandi and Martin Luther King would not have been nearly so successful if they had used your tactics.

You are a very crappy teacher. I don't care how much you know - if you are unwilling to set forth your knowledge in a constructive manner for the benefit those who know less than you, then there's no reason for you to act better. To have such knowledge and set such a high emotional price for others to share in it is nothing less than cruel.

Either play nicely, or don't play at all. This is not a urinating contest, nor is it a martial arts ring where you kick the crap out of people to show them they don't know anything.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Let's be clear since I said 2 things.

You're only quarrel has been with "mechanics."

And yes, the "field" is the ether/aether.

Agree or disagree?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Field is not aether.
Field is not aether.
Field is not aether.
Field is not aether.
Field is not aether.
Field is not aether.
Field is not aether.
Field is not aether.
Field is not aether.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I submit that if aether were to exist, it would be a field, but you're saying since aether does not exist, it cannot be a field. So prove that aether does not exist. And no, lack of evidence does not constitute nonexistence, it constitute incomprehension.

reply to post by buddhasystem




Did the teacher keep you after school?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

And here-have-a-fistful-of-feces-as-a-reward-for-the-idiocy-I-feel-you-have-displayed sets you a long way back, regarding the number of people likely to listen to you. I'm fairly certain Ghandi and Martin Luther King would not have been nearly so successful if they had used your tactics.

You are a very crappy teacher.

No, my students seemed to like me, and blind/anonymous reviews were favorable. Of course, once in a while there would be a lazy dope who would write off his lack of progress as a result of inadequate teaching, but fortunately these disadvantaged people were rare in the crowd of bright and motivated students who actually paid attention.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Well, that would really help if you were actually TEACHING SOMETHING HERE.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
You are a very crappy teacher.

You can't teach what you don't understand.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
You are a very crappy teacher.

You can't teach what you don't understand.

A physicist will have no idea for a field/aether based model of existence .

Physics is usually concerned with a model of existence in which matter - how ever small - is at the core of everything .


Aether / Field must be ALL what there was before the Big Bang , perhaps ?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Oh, he understands. He's just got a rough way of imparting his expertise.

Originally posted by 23432

A physicist will have no idea for a field/aether based model of existence .

Physics is usually concerned with a model of existence in which matter - how ever small - is at the core of everything .

Here's a dictionary definition of field:

Physics A region of space characterized by a physical property, such as gravitational or electromagnetic force or fluid pressure, having a determinable value at every point in the region.

Where is the matter in that definition? Is gravity matter? Is EM matter? What fluid pressure are they talking about?

If E=MC^2 then energy is mass in motion. If there is energy, there is mass

If a force has energy, even if it is only potential energy, then it must have mass.

That mass can be called what ever you want, but it must be there.

reply to post by poet1b

If E=MC^2 then energy is mass in motion. If there is energy, there is mass

If a force has energy, even if it is only potential energy, then it must have mass.

That mass can be called what ever you want, but it must be there.

Interesting notion. By that reasoning, there is energy anywhere that is above 0 Kalvin, which is essentially everywhere. And if there is energy everywhere, then there is matter everywhere. Every single space of existence. Even outer space is about 3 Kalvin. So conceivably, at even the deepest level, there is some form of matter present.

I'm not convinced that aether is a physical property in that sense.

reply to post by poet1b


Could there be such a thing as potential mass?

Since we're batting terminology around, I thought I'd post this quote from a website for a "Keppe Motor":

Keppe Motor

Based on the principles outlined in The New Physics Derived from a Disinverted Metaphysics by Norberto Keppe, especially the idea that energy doesn’t come from matter. According to Keppe, the process is actually the opposite, meaning that matter comes from a previous, primary energy called Essential Energy, which is infinite and exists everywhere in the entire universe.

"Essential Energy." A previous, primary energy.

reply to post by Mary Rose


LOL, now that is an interesting turn of a phrase.

I guess that would require some level of particle, that is deemed too small to have mass, but capable of combining to form mass.

Why not?

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by primalfractal

 

Well, I hope you keep on keeping on!

In my opinion, the ether is already established - it's just called "zero point energy" - but since the mainstream doesn't seem to be doing anything with it, maybe another experiment will be a catalyst.

What is zero point energy actually? How might it differ from the old concept of the aether?

The old concept of the ether involved a preferred reference frame for transmission of electromagnetic waves, something which would have significant experimental consequences, but these were not observed.

The experimental consequences of zero-point-energy specifically are slim to none; it is just the notion of a ground state in a field which is not mathematically the 'zero' in the functional space which is the important one.

In sum, the mathematical object zero, where zero is defined by invariance in the appropriate additive group operation (a purely mathematical definition), does not represent the physical vacuum in field theory (a physical definition). Assuming they have to be the same is an unjustified human heuristic.

This was unexpected at first but apparently true, and not at all crazy in quantum mechanics.

It's not really different from the how an electron has an intrinsic spin angular momentum of hbar/2. You can get + hbar/2 or - hbar/2 but you can't ever get zero.

In classical Newtonian physics, the internal angular momentum of a solid object (spin), can be made arbitrarily small down to zero. In reality there is a minimum for some kinds of particles. Well, there is a minimum state of fields as well.

In physics it is energy differences which matter for generating physically observable phenomenon. Adding a constant everywhere changes nothing experimentally.

Originally posted by primalfractal
Nevertheless the non exclusive wave properties of the photon wave packet still need some sort of medium to propergate in. You cant have a wave in nothing, it implies a medium of some sort to propergate in any way.

The wave is in the medium of the electromagnetic field which permeates the universe. There is no underlying physical substrate which has been observed to be "below" this which has any experimental effects.