Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #518971 > unrolled thread

What of this ether?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  What of this ether? gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-04 17:58 -0500
    Re: What of this ether? dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 16:20 -0700
    Re: What of this ether? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-09-04 16:45 -0700
      Re: What of this ether? dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 16:57 -0700
        Re: What of this ether? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-09-06 15:03 -0700
      Re: What of this ether? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 11:18 -0700
        Re: What of this ether? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-09-06 12:11 -0700
        Re: What of this ether? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-09-06 15:04 -0700
          Re: What of this ether? HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 05:03 -0400
    aether is the spacve between the atoms of the vacuum (relative, not pascalian noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 17:03 -0700
    What of this ether? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 18:05 -0700
      Re: What of this ether? HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 06:48 -0400

#518971 — What of this ether?

"What of this ether?" I queried.

"It is a necessity in science, but intangible, undemonstrated, unknown, 
and wholly theoretical. It is accepted as an existing fluid by 
scientists, because human theory can not conceive of a substance capable 
of, or explain how a substance can be capable of affecting a separate 
body unless there is an intermediate medium to convey force impressions. 
Hence to material substances Aristotle added (or at least made 
conspicuous) a speculative ether that, he assumed, pervades all space, 
and all material bodies as well, in order to account for the passage of 
heat and light to and from the sun, stars, and planets."

"Explain further," I requested.

"To conceive of such an entity we must imagine a material that is more 
evanescent than any known gas, even in its most diffused condition. It 
must combine the solidity of the most perfect conductor of heat 
(exceeding any known body in this respect to an infinite degree), with 
the transparency of an absolute vacuum. It must neither create friction 
by contact with any substance, nor possess attraction for matter; must
neither possess weight (and yet carry the force that produces weight), 
nor respond to the influence of any chemical agent, or exhibit itself to 
any optical instrument. It must be invisible, and yet carry the force 
that produces the sensation of sight. It must be of such a nature that 
it can not, according to our philosophy, affect the corpuscles of 
earthly substances while permeating them without contact or friction, 
and yet, as a scientific incongruity, it must act so readily on physical 
bodies as to convey to the material eye the sensation of sight, and from 
the sun to creatures on distant planets it must carry the heat force, 
thus giving rise to the sensation of warmth. Through this medium, yet 
without sensible contact with it, worlds must move, and planetary 
systems revolve, cutting and piercing it in every direction, without 
loss of momentum. And yet, as I have said, this ether must be in such 
close contact as to convey to them the essence that warms the universe, 
lights the universe, and must supply the attractive bonds that hold the 
stellar worlds in position. A nothing in itself, so far as man's senses 
indicate, the ether of space must be denser than iridium, more mobile 
than any known liquid, and stronger than the finest steel."

"I can not conceive of such an entity," I replied.

"No; neither can any man, for the theory is irrational, and can not be 
supported by comparison with laws known to man, but the conception is 
nevertheless a primary necessity in scientific study. Can man, by any 
rational theory, combine a vacuum and a substance, and create a result 
that is neither material nor vacuity, neither something nor nothing, and 
yet an intensified all; being more attenuated than the most perfect of 
known vacuums, and a conductor better than the densest metal? This we do 
when we attempt to describe the scientists’ all-pervading ether of 
space, and to account for its influence on matter. This hypothetical 
ether is, for want of a better theory of causes, as supreme in 
philosophy to-day as the alkahest of the talented old alchemist Van 
Helmont was in former times, a universal spirit that exists in 
conception; and yet does not exist in perception, and of which modern 
science knows as little as its speculative promulgator, Aristotle, did. 
We who pride ourselves on our exact science, smile at some of 
Aristotle's statements in other directions, for science has disproved 
them, and yet necessity forces us to accept this illogical ether 
speculation, which is, perhaps, the most unreasonable of all theories. 
Did not this Greek philosopher also gravely assert that the lion has but 
one vertebra in his neck; that the breath of man enters the heart; that 
the back of the head is empty, and that man has but eight ribs?"

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#518985

On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 12:59:18 AM UTC+2, gilber34 wrote:
> "What of this ether?" I queried.
> 
> "It is a necessity in science, but intangible, undemonstrated, unknown, 
> and wholly theoretical. It is accepted as an existing fluid by 
> scientists, because human theory can not conceive of a substance capable 
> of, or explain how a substance can be capable of affecting a separate 
> body unless there is an intermediate medium to convey force impressions. 
> Hence to material substances Aristotle added (or at least made 
> conspicuous) a speculative ether that, he assumed, pervades all space, 
> and all material bodies as well, in order to account for the passage of 
> heat and light to and from the sun, stars, and planets."
> 
> "Explain further," I requested.
> 
> "To conceive of such an entity we must imagine a material that is more 
> evanescent than any known gas, even in its most diffused condition. It 
> must combine the solidity of the most perfect conductor of heat 
> (exceeding any known body in this respect to an infinite degree), with 
> the transparency of an absolute vacuum. It must neither create friction 
> by contact with any substance, nor possess attraction for matter; must
> neither possess weight (and yet carry the force that produces weight), 
> nor respond to the influence of any chemical agent, or exhibit itself to 
> any optical instrument. It must be invisible, and yet carry the force 
> that produces the sensation of sight. It must be of such a nature that 
> it can not, according to our philosophy, affect the corpuscles of 
> earthly substances while permeating them without contact or friction, 
> and yet, as a scientific incongruity, it must act so readily on physical 
> bodies as to convey to the material eye the sensation of sight, and from 
> the sun to creatures on distant planets it must carry the heat force, 
> thus giving rise to the sensation of warmth. Through this medium, yet 
> without sensible contact with it, worlds must move, and planetary 
> systems revolve, cutting and piercing it in every direction, without 
> loss of momentum. And yet, as I have said, this ether must be in such 
> close contact as to convey to them the essence that warms the universe, 
> lights the universe, and must supply the attractive bonds that hold the 
> stellar worlds in position. A nothing in itself, so far as man's senses 
> indicate, the ether of space must be denser than iridium, more mobile 
> than any known liquid, and stronger than the finest steel."
> 
> "I can not conceive of such an entity," I replied.
> 
> "No; neither can any man, for the theory is irrational, and can not be 
> supported by comparison with laws known to man, but the conception is 
> nevertheless a primary necessity in scientific study. Can man, by any 
> rational theory, combine a vacuum and a substance, and create a result 
> that is neither material nor vacuity, neither something nor nothing, and 
> yet an intensified all; being more attenuated than the most perfect of 
> known vacuums, and a conductor better than the densest metal? This we do 
> when we attempt to describe the scientists' all-pervading ether of 
> space, and to account for its influence on matter. This hypothetical 
> ether is, for want of a better theory of causes, as supreme in 
> philosophy to-day as the alkahest of the talented old alchemist Van 
> Helmont was in former times, a universal spirit that exists in 
> conception; and yet does not exist in perception, and of which modern 
> science knows as little as its speculative promulgator, Aristotle, did. 
> We who pride ourselves on our exact science, smile at some of 
> Aristotle's statements in other directions, for science has disproved 
> them, and yet necessity forces us to accept this illogical ether 
> speculation, which is, perhaps, the most unreasonable of all theories. 
> Did not this Greek philosopher also gravely assert that the lion has but 
> one vertebra in his neck; that the breath of man enters the heart; that 
> the back of the head is empty, and that man has but eight ribs?"

you put alberto einstein's dead body somewhere in baltic russia as target for 100 Megatons of TNT Tsar Bomba and the hit expodes him on infinite abundance of photonic zeros uniformly distributed across the whole of universe... that uniform fulfillment of the space with AE zeros is Aether. medium of photons in which light waves.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#518991

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 3:59:18 PM UTC-7, gilber34 wrote:
> "What of this ether?" I queried.
> 
> "It is a necessity in science, but intangible, undemonstrated, unknown, 
> and wholly theoretical. It is accepted as an existing fluid by 
> scientists, because human theory can not conceive of a substance capable 
> of, or explain how a substance can be capable of affecting a separate 
> body unless there is an intermediate medium to convey force impressions. 
> Hence to material substances Aristotle added (or at least made 
> conspicuous) a speculative ether that, he assumed, pervades all space, 
> and all material bodies as well, in order to account for the passage of 
> heat and light to and from the sun, stars, and planets."
> 
> "Explain further," I requested.
> 
> "To conceive of such an entity we must imagine a material that is more 
> evanescent than any known gas, even in its most diffused condition. It 
> must combine the solidity of the most perfect conductor of heat 
> (exceeding any known body in this respect to an infinite degree), with 
> the transparency of an absolute vacuum. It must neither create friction 
> by contact with any substance, nor possess attraction for matter; must
> neither possess weight (and yet carry the force that produces weight), 
> nor respond to the influence of any chemical agent, or exhibit itself to 
> any optical instrument. It must be invisible, and yet carry the force 
> that produces the sensation of sight. It must be of such a nature that 
> it can not, according to our philosophy, affect the corpuscles of 
> earthly substances while permeating them without contact or friction, 
> and yet, as a scientific incongruity, it must act so readily on physical 
> bodies as to convey to the material eye the sensation of sight, and from 
> the sun to creatures on distant planets it must carry the heat force, 
> thus giving rise to the sensation of warmth. Through this medium, yet 
> without sensible contact with it, worlds must move, and planetary 
> systems revolve, cutting and piercing it in every direction, without 
> loss of momentum. And yet, as I have said, this ether must be in such 
> close contact as to convey to them the essence that warms the universe, 
> lights the universe, and must supply the attractive bonds that hold the 
> stellar worlds in position. A nothing in itself, so far as man's senses 
> indicate, the ether of space must be denser than iridium, more mobile 
> than any known liquid, and stronger than the finest steel."
> 
> "I can not conceive of such an entity," I replied.
> 
> "No; neither can any man, for the theory is irrational, and can not be 
> supported by comparison with laws known to man, but the conception is 
> nevertheless a primary necessity in scientific study. Can man, by any 
> rational theory, combine a vacuum and a substance, and create a result 
> that is neither material nor vacuity, neither something nor nothing, and 
> yet an intensified all; being more attenuated than the most perfect of 
> known vacuums, and a conductor better than the densest metal? This we do 
> when we attempt to describe the scientists' all-pervading ether of 
> space, and to account for its influence on matter. This hypothetical 
> ether is, for want of a better theory of causes, as supreme in 
> philosophy to-day as the alkahest of the talented old alchemist Van 
> Helmont was in former times, a universal spirit that exists in 
> conception; and yet does not exist in perception, and of which modern 
> science knows as little as its speculative promulgator, Aristotle, did. 
> We who pride ourselves on our exact science, smile at some of 
> Aristotle's statements in other directions, for science has disproved 
> them, and yet necessity forces us to accept this illogical ether 
> speculation, which is, perhaps, the most unreasonable of all theories. 
> Did not this Greek philosopher also gravely assert that the lion has but 
> one vertebra in his neck; that the breath of man enters the heart; that 
> the back of the head is empty, and that man has but eight ribs?"


Without Aether, what would the gods breath?

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#518994

round up a complete circle with the formula 1^0 = O^1. the interior may inhale only if the exterior exhales and the interior may exhale only when the exterior inhales. the disharmony in this aether exchange chokes them both dead. 

if the light emission of atoms dues to spherical waves of charge@phase isa amplitude_charge times cosine of phase then it is atom's sign of live. if so then atoms are vital and breath photonic energy. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#519397

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:57:11 PM UTC-7, dobri karagorgov wrote:
> round up a complete circle with the formula 1^0 = O^1. the interior may inhale only if the exterior exhales and the interior may exhale only when the exterior inhales. the disharmony in this aether exchange chokes them both dead. 
> 
> if the light emission of atoms dues to spherical waves of charge@phase isa amplitude_charge times cosine of phase then it is atom's sign of live. if so then atoms are vital and breath photonic energy.

I don't think you equation balances.

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#519303

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:45:37 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 3:59:18 PM UTC-7, gilber34 wrote:
> > "What of this ether?" I queried.
> > 
> > "It is a necessity in science, but intangible, undemonstrated, unknown, 
> > and wholly theoretical. It is accepted as an existing fluid by 
> > scientists, because human theory can not conceive of a substance capable 
> > of, or explain how a substance can be capable of affecting a separate 
> > body unless there is an intermediate medium to convey force impressions. 
> > Hence to material substances Aristotle added (or at least made 
> > conspicuous) a speculative ether that, he assumed, pervades all space, 
> > and all material bodies as well, in order to account for the passage of 
> > heat and light to and from the sun, stars, and planets."
> > 
> > "Explain further," I requested.
> > 
> > "To conceive of such an entity we must imagine a material that is more 
> > evanescent than any known gas, even in its most diffused condition. It 
> > must combine the solidity of the most perfect conductor of heat 
> > (exceeding any known body in this respect to an infinite degree), with 
> > the transparency of an absolute vacuum. It must neither create friction 
> > by contact with any substance, nor possess attraction for matter; must
> > neither possess weight (and yet carry the force that produces weight), 
> > nor respond to the influence of any chemical agent, or exhibit itself to 
> > any optical instrument. It must be invisible, and yet carry the force 
> > that produces the sensation of sight. It must be of such a nature that 
> > it can not, according to our philosophy, affect the corpuscles of 
> > earthly substances while permeating them without contact or friction, 
> > and yet, as a scientific incongruity, it must act so readily on physical 
> > bodies as to convey to the material eye the sensation of sight, and from 
> > the sun to creatures on distant planets it must carry the heat force, 
> > thus giving rise to the sensation of warmth. Through this medium, yet 
> > without sensible contact with it, worlds must move, and planetary 
> > systems revolve, cutting and piercing it in every direction, without 
> > loss of momentum. And yet, as I have said, this ether must be in such 
> > close contact as to convey to them the essence that warms the universe, 
> > lights the universe, and must supply the attractive bonds that hold the 
> > stellar worlds in position. A nothing in itself, so far as man's senses 
> > indicate, the ether of space must be denser than iridium, more mobile 
> > than any known liquid, and stronger than the finest steel."
> > 
> > "I can not conceive of such an entity," I replied.
> > 
> > "No; neither can any man, for the theory is irrational, and can not be 
> > supported by comparison with laws known to man, but the conception is 
> > nevertheless a primary necessity in scientific study. Can man, by any 
> > rational theory, combine a vacuum and a substance, and create a result 
> > that is neither material nor vacuity, neither something nor nothing, and 
> > yet an intensified all; being more attenuated than the most perfect of 
> > known vacuums, and a conductor better than the densest metal? This we do 
> > when we attempt to describe the scientists' all-pervading ether of 
> > space, and to account for its influence on matter. This hypothetical 
> > ether is, for want of a better theory of causes, as supreme in 
> > philosophy to-day as the alkahest of the talented old alchemist Van 
> > Helmont was in former times, a universal spirit that exists in 
> > conception; and yet does not exist in perception, and of which modern 
> > science knows as little as its speculative promulgator, Aristotle, did. 
> > We who pride ourselves on our exact science, smile at some of 
> > Aristotle's statements in other directions, for science has disproved 
> > them, and yet necessity forces us to accept this illogical ether 
> > speculation, which is, perhaps, the most unreasonable of all theories. 
> > Did not this Greek philosopher also gravely assert that the lion has but 
> > one vertebra in his neck; that the breath of man enters the heart; that 
> > the back of the head is empty, and that man has but eight ribs?"
> 
> 
> Without Aether, what would the gods breath?
> 
> Double-A

AA Without Aether there would be no Gods,no gravity,and in reality no universe.There was a time when all there was was "Aether" It was space full off virtual energy waiting to pop into reality. One pop was all that was needed,and the quantum realm came to be.  Shall I put this as theory 17. AA I'll let you decide for me.  TreBert PS we could call it "Big Pop" to go with Quantum realm,and Big bang for Macro Realm.It fits

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#519321

<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Glazier the Swine "reber g=emc^2" wrote
One poop was all that was needed,and the quantum realm came to be.
Shall I put this as theory 17. TreBert PS we could call it "Big Popp" to 
go with Cretin Glazier's Gutter Physics wrapped into his Glazierola.
AA I'll let you decide for me.
>
hanson wrote:
Glazier your memory is gone. All that was decided when...
>
 Glazier's ex-tutor Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> said:
Glazier, "Its a shame"  that your science is far worse 
than the man's on the street.
Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage.
Glazier, your brain is entangles with a used garbage can.
reber, take your you know it all thinking to your grave .
reber, your horseshit gets old.Say hi to Allah for me.
reber, you don't believe in science.
Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup.
Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__.
Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!
>
"Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote:
GLAZIER YOU ARE A LAMEbrain PIECE OF SHIT!
Saul Levy
>
"benj" <nobody@gmail.com> Jacoby Ben wrote:
One only has to read Glazier's posts to see when Bert was lobotomized.
>
Moderator General "HVAC" <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com>
Harlow Campbell succinctly added & wrote:
>
"TreBert, you are one stupid cocksucker".
"Bert, Seriously. You are the stupidest cocksucking
moron who ever came down the Mass Pike.
"Bert, does your stupidity know no bounds?"
"Bert, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human
fucking being". "Bert is a racist. (And he's stupid too)"
"Bert, are the stupidest cocksucker on the planet."
"Spin THIS, Glazier, you fucking idiot." "Bert get
some spelling lessons, you feeble-minded fuck".
"Bert, your opinion doesn't count"
"Bert you are an idiot."
"Bert, you are a clueless cocksucker .... and "Bert
you are senile, dazed & confused. Fucked in the head.
"a trained cockroach is smarter than Bert"
"Bert, you should be arrested"
"Bert, I will call the police and tell them that your
van seems to be a center for drug activity in the
Wal-Mart parking lot"....
>
hanson wrote:
So Glazier you filthy Swine, given that the police is aware
that YOU issued criminal threats to the above posters with
your intent to shit into their mouths and piss onto their
graves, ... what did the cops say to you when you made
the local  police "aware" that....
>
<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> :B::ert Glazier, the Swine,
Hate filled War monger, Jewish Jailbird, Face-shitter and
Graveyard Vandal, Thief, Racist, Bigot & Criminal Communist
Traitor Sympathizer "reber g=emc^2" introduced himself
as/with
>
:B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
:B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how everything works,.."
:B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
:B:: "I'm a non-bible(torra) Jew I'm the only Jew that
:B:: got 2 letters from two Popes". Bert
:B:: "I'm M&M's Clueless Fuck-faced turd".Bert.
:B:: "I gave G=EMC^2 (wrong & stolen) to the world"
:B:: "Israel will drop its first H-bomb 'David' ". TreBert
:B:: __"I'm glad when war breaks out"__ Bert
:B:: "I'll be sitting on Benj's, Saul Levi's & HVAC's
:B:: face to take a shit & say: "Open your mouth wide".
:B:: "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And laugh".
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
:B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and
:B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them. "....
:B:: cuz "I was mixing sulfur,carbon & iron together
:B:: to make gun powder" ....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#519398

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:18:10 AM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:45:37 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 3:59:18 PM UTC-7, gilber34 wrote:
> > > "What of this ether?" I queried.
> > > 
> > > "It is a necessity in science, but intangible, undemonstrated, unknown, 
> > > and wholly theoretical. It is accepted as an existing fluid by 
> > > scientists, because human theory can not conceive of a substance capable 
> > > of, or explain how a substance can be capable of affecting a separate 
> > > body unless there is an intermediate medium to convey force impressions. 
> > > Hence to material substances Aristotle added (or at least made 
> > > conspicuous) a speculative ether that, he assumed, pervades all space, 
> > > and all material bodies as well, in order to account for the passage of 
> > > heat and light to and from the sun, stars, and planets."
> > > 
> > > "Explain further," I requested.
> > > 
> > > "To conceive of such an entity we must imagine a material that is more 
> > > evanescent than any known gas, even in its most diffused condition. It 
> > > must combine the solidity of the most perfect conductor of heat 
> > > (exceeding any known body in this respect to an infinite degree), with 
> > > the transparency of an absolute vacuum. It must neither create friction 
> > > by contact with any substance, nor possess attraction for matter; must
> > > neither possess weight (and yet carry the force that produces weight), 
> > > nor respond to the influence of any chemical agent, or exhibit itself to 
> > > any optical instrument. It must be invisible, and yet carry the force 
> > > that produces the sensation of sight. It must be of such a nature that 
> > > it can not, according to our philosophy, affect the corpuscles of 
> > > earthly substances while permeating them without contact or friction, 
> > > and yet, as a scientific incongruity, it must act so readily on physical 
> > > bodies as to convey to the material eye the sensation of sight, and from 
> > > the sun to creatures on distant planets it must carry the heat force, 
> > > thus giving rise to the sensation of warmth. Through this medium, yet 
> > > without sensible contact with it, worlds must move, and planetary 
> > > systems revolve, cutting and piercing it in every direction, without 
> > > loss of momentum. And yet, as I have said, this ether must be in such 
> > > close contact as to convey to them the essence that warms the universe, 
> > > lights the universe, and must supply the attractive bonds that hold the 
> > > stellar worlds in position. A nothing in itself, so far as man's senses 
> > > indicate, the ether of space must be denser than iridium, more mobile 
> > > than any known liquid, and stronger than the finest steel."
> > > 
> > > "I can not conceive of such an entity," I replied.
> > > 
> > > "No; neither can any man, for the theory is irrational, and can not be 
> > > supported by comparison with laws known to man, but the conception is 
> > > nevertheless a primary necessity in scientific study. Can man, by any 
> > > rational theory, combine a vacuum and a substance, and create a result 
> > > that is neither material nor vacuity, neither something nor nothing, and 
> > > yet an intensified all; being more attenuated than the most perfect of 
> > > known vacuums, and a conductor better than the densest metal? This we do 
> > > when we attempt to describe the scientists' all-pervading ether of 
> > > space, and to account for its influence on matter. This hypothetical 
> > > ether is, for want of a better theory of causes, as supreme in 
> > > philosophy to-day as the alkahest of the talented old alchemist Van 
> > > Helmont was in former times, a universal spirit that exists in 
> > > conception; and yet does not exist in perception, and of which modern 
> > > science knows as little as its speculative promulgator, Aristotle, did. 
> > > We who pride ourselves on our exact science, smile at some of 
> > > Aristotle's statements in other directions, for science has disproved 
> > > them, and yet necessity forces us to accept this illogical ether 
> > > speculation, which is, perhaps, the most unreasonable of all theories. 
> > > Did not this Greek philosopher also gravely assert that the lion has but 
> > > one vertebra in his neck; that the breath of man enters the heart; that 
> > > the back of the head is empty, and that man has but eight ribs?"
> > 
> > 
> > Without Aether, what would the gods breath?
> > 
> > Double-A
> 
> AA Without Aether there would be no Gods,no gravity,and in reality no universe.There was a time when all there was was "Aether" It was space full off virtual energy waiting to pop into reality. One pop was all that was needed,and the quantum realm came to be.  Shall I put this as theory 17. AA I'll let you decide for me.  TreBert PS we could call it "Big Pop" to go with Quantum realm,and Big bang for Macro Realm.It fits


Don't make me make your decisions for you.

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#519504

On 9/6/2015 6:04 PM, Double-A wrote:
>
>> AA Without Aether there would be no Gods,no gravity,and in reality no universe.There was a time when all there was was "Aether" It was space full off virtual energy waiting to pop into reality. One pop was all that was needed,and the quantum realm came to be.  Shall I put this as theory 17. AA I'll let you decide for me.  TreBert PS we could call it "Big Pop" to go with Quantum realm,and Big bang for Macro Realm.It fits
>
>
> Don't make me make your decisions for you.


Even AA is getting fed up with Bert's bullshit.


-- 
Woodland Critters Christmas
https://goo.gl/DysCAl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#518999 — aether is the spacve between the atoms of the vacuum (relative, not pascalian

electron-magnetism requires a)
electrons around b)
atoms in c)
space

> "To conceive of such an entity we must imagine a material that is more 
> evanescent than any known gas, even in its most diffused condition. It 
> must combine the solidity of the most perfect conductor of heat 
> (exceeding any known body in this respect to an infinite degree), with 
> the transparency of an absolute vacuum. It must neither create friction 
> by contact with any substance, nor possess attraction for matter; must
> neither possess weight (and yet carry the force that produces weight), 
> nor respond to the influence of any chemical agent, or exhibit itself to 
> any optical instrument. It must be invisible, and yet carry the force 
> that produces the sensation of sight. It must be of such a nature that 
> it can not, according to our philosophy, affect the corpuscles of 
> earthly substances while permeating them without contact or friction, 
> and yet, as a scientific incongruity, it must act so readily on physical 
> bodies as to convey to the material eye the sensation of sight, and from 
> the sun to creatures on distant planets it must carry the heat force, 
> thus giving rise to the sensation of warmth. Through this medium, yet 
> without sensible contact with it, worlds must move, and planetary 
> systems revolve, cutting and piercing it in every direction, without 
> loss of momentum. And yet, as I have said, this ether must be in such 
> close contact as to convey to them the essence that warms the universe, 
> lights the universe, and must supply the attractive bonds that hold the 
> stellar worlds in position. A nothing in itself, so far as man's senses 
> indicate, the ether of space must be denser than iridium, more mobile 
> than any known liquid, and stronger than the finest steel."
> 
> "I can not conceive of such an entity," I replied.
> 
> "No; neither can any man, for the theory is irrational, and can not be 
> supported by comparison with laws known to man, but the conception is 
> nevertheless a primary necessity in scientific study. Can man, by any 
> rational theory, combine a vacuum and a substance, and create a result 
> that is neither material nor vacuity, neither something nor nothing, and 
> yet an intensified all; being more attenuated than the most perfect of 
> known vacuums, and a conductor better than the densest metal? This we do 
> when we attempt to describe the scientists' all-pervading ether of 
> space, and to account for its influence on matter. This hypothetical 
> ether is, for want of a better theory of causes, as supreme in 
> philosophy to-day as the alkahest of the talented old alchemist Van 
> Helmont was in former times, a universal spirit that exists in 
> conception; and yet does not exist in perception, and of which modern 
> science knows as little as its speculative promulgator, Aristotle, did. 
> We who pride ourselves on our exact science, smile at some of 
> Aristotle's statements in other directions, for science has disproved 
> them, and yet necessity forces us to accept this illogical ether 
> speculation, which is, perhaps, the most unreasonable of all theories. 
> Did not this Greek philosopher also gravely assert that the lion has but 
> one vertebra in his neck; that the breath of man enters the heart; that 
> the back of the head is empty, and that man has but eight ribs?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#519016

A finer form of matter.
Fractal matter- that which makes
up electrons.
Too small to interact with our emr
but responsible for Gravity/inertia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#519048

On 9/4/2015 9:05 PM, john wrote:
> A finer form of matter.
> Fractal matter- that which makes
> up electrons.
> Too small to interact with our emr
> but responsible for Gravity/inertia.
>

Ether is like god. It doesn't exist, and it's value to anything relating 
to the physical world remains zero. In other words you can treat both 
EXACTLY as if they don't exist.



-- 
"Are we going to fight or are we going to stand around all day?"
https://goo.gl/TU0Xr6

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web