Prev: How does one do an intergal which contains sqrt(dx) as the intergation element?
Next: Sum of three cubes
From: mpc755 on 13 Jan 2010 22:23
On Jan 13, 10:17 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> do you posit that "the vacuum" is just aether?...  so, if
> there is only relative degrees of vacuum,
> what is the need for relative dgrees of aether,
> to displace the matter that is not in space?
>
> well, what other ponderable properties does it have,
> other than this displacement/entrainment?
>

Besides displacement I'm not really sure, since entrainment is a form
of displacement.

The aether is not a rest when displaced, so there is the associated
aether pressure the aether exerts back towards the matter.

The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive
objects is gravity.

> > If we combine the two we get:
>
> > The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, at
> > every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of
> > the aether in neighboring places, is the aether's state of
> > displacement.
>
> > What *is* ponderable is the aether's state of displacement.
>
> thus:
> but the models have always coroberated (sp.?) "global" warming,
> even though there are approximately no datasets that show it (that is
> to say, none that I have come across since about '82,
> when I first began to pay attention to the rapidity of the change
> of the climate).  of course,
> you don't have to know, which datasets those are;
> what ones do you ascribe to?
>
> please note that on the equinox at noon, if
> insolation is "one" at the equator, then
> it is basically "zero" at both poles;
> a model is always correct, at least twice a year!
>
> > That all those models from 10 countries project the world is getting
> > warmer proves it's one massive conspiracy.
>
> thus:
> so, what is it about aether tha *is* ponderable, if
> Einstein couldn't find it in a thought "experiment?"
>
> --l'OEuvre!http://wlym.com

From: spudnik on 15 Jan 2010 00:32
ah, the treacly doohickey of language --
not to mention, translation!

if you would jettison the mere mathematical duality
of the "photon," and stick with the expanding wavefront
for a while, where'd go your quantum of aether?

if you insist on springing from wave- to particle-
interpretation for no reason
-- although all of their properties are dual,
just like in projective geometry & so on --
you won't get much that is reasonable; eh?

> Aether is uncompressed matter and matter is compressed aether, so the
> aether does have mass. But since it is the lowest common denominator
> of matter, it can't be measured. It is the same conceptually as a
> photon having a rest mass of zero. If a photon is a quantum of aether
> when it is at rest, not to suggest that is what the aether consists
> of, then even if the photon, as a quantum of aether, has mass, since
> nothing has less mass and you cannot track that individual photon
> separately through time (i.e. you cannot measure the individual
> photon), then it is perfectly reasonable to 'mistake' the photon for
> having a rest mass of zero.
>
> The same is true for the aether. There is no way to measure the
> aether's mass. There is no way to measure the aether in any way
> possible in and of itself. There is nothing with less mass per volume
> than the aether. It is perfectly reasonable to 'mistake' the aether
> for having no mass.

> Nothing else is observable (i.e. measurable) other than the shape of
> the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time. And even that
> is not measurable directly. We can only measure the shape of the
> aether as being displaced by matter.

thus:
"Most of the newly discovered glaciers are covered with rocky debris;
continuous freezing and thawing splinters the brittle granite that
forms some of the park's majestic peaks. Park officials say
comparisons with historical photos suggest that at least some of the
glaciers are expanding."

garbage up; garbage down?

--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 15 Jan 2010 00:38
On Jan 15, 12:32 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> ah, the treacly doohickey of language --
> not to mention, translation!
>
> if you would jettison the mere mathematical duality
> of the "photon," and stick with the expanding wavefront
> for a while, where'd go your quantum of aether?
>

A photon is a directed/pointed wave in the aether which when detected
collapses and is detected as a quantum of aether (the ability of the
photon to collapse and be detected as a quantum of aether travels a
single path while the photon wave travels available paths), or a
photon is a quantum of aether creating a displacement wave in the
aether, or a photon is something else.

> if you insist on springing from wave- to particle-
> interpretation for no reason
> -- although all of their properties are dual,
> just like in projective geometry & so on --
> you won't get much that is reasonable; eh?
>
>
>
> > Aether is uncompressed matter and matter is compressed aether, so the
> > aether does have mass. But since it is the lowest common denominator
> > of matter, it can't be measured. It is the same conceptually as a
> > photon having a rest mass of zero. If a photon is a quantum of aether
> > when it is at rest, not to suggest that is what the aether consists
> > of, then even if the photon, as a quantum of aether, has mass, since
> > nothing has less mass and you cannot track that individual photon
> > separately through time (i.e. you cannot measure the individual
> > photon), then it is perfectly reasonable to 'mistake' the photon for
> > having a rest mass of zero.
>
> > The same is true for the aether. There is no way to measure the
> > aether's mass. There is no way to measure the aether in any way
> > possible in and of itself. There is nothing with less mass per volume
> > than the aether. It is perfectly reasonable to 'mistake' the aether
> > for having no mass.
> > Nothing else is observable (i.e. measurable) other than the shape of
> > the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time. And even that
> > is not measurable directly. We can only measure the shape of the
> > aether as being displaced by matter.
>
> thus:
> "Most of the newly discovered glaciers are covered with rocky debris;
> continuous freezing and thawing splinters the brittle granite that
> forms some of the park's majestic peaks. Park officials say
> comparisons with historical photos suggest that at least some of the
> glaciers are expanding."
>
> garbage up; garbage down?
>
> --l'OEuvre!http://wlym.com

From: spudnik on 15 Jan 2010 01:04
work it -- the pitter-patter of mealy-mouthed language!... well,
I saw the "photon" cartoon you posted,
which was neither a wave nor a particle;
more of like a wiggly vector but, so, What's it mean?

it just does not pay, in spite of lots of precedent,
to confuse the two, dual natures of light --
use one or the other, or pause to explain why,
you suddenly shift from one perspective
to the other (no matter how fatuous,
either is, as it stands) without changing (or
even briefly considering) the math.

(the example of the "two column proof"
in projective geometry shows the problem;
you don't *need* both, and
you should never mix the proofs!)

> A photon is a directed/pointed wave in the aether which when detected
> collapses and is detected as a quantum of aether (the ability of the
> photon to collapse and be detected as a quantum of aether travels a
> single path while the photon wave travels available paths), or a
> photon is a quantum of aether creating a displacement wave in the
> aether, or a photon is something else.

thus:
the models are very hoary, but not frosty, and
have been since no body ever modeled a typical glass house,
including Svente Ahrrenius. and,
the reportage is understandably but lamentably selective.

> Meanwhile even the world's best "guess" model, Hansen C, has failed by far.

thus:
"Most of the newly discovered glaciers are covered with rocky debris;
continuous freezing and thawing splinters the brittle granite that
forms some of the park's majestic peaks. Park officials say
comparisons with historical photos suggest that at least some of the
glaciers are expanding."

garbage up; garbage down?

thus:
ah, the treacly doohickey of language --
not to mention, translation!

if you would jettison the mere mathematical duality
of the "photon," and stick with the expanding wavefront
for a while, where'd go your quantum of aether?

if you insist on springing from wave- to particle-
interpretation for no reason
-- although all of their properties are dual,
just like in projective geometry & so on --
you won't get much that is reasonable; eh?

--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 15 Jan 2010 01:08
On Jan 15, 1:04 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> work it -- the pitter-patter of mealy-mouthed language!...  well,
> I saw the "photon" cartoon you posted,
> which was neither a wave nor a particle;
> more of like a wiggly vector but, so, What's it mean?
>

The animation you saw here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWRNZNemQyY

Is of a particle and its associated aether wave, not a photon in
particular.

> it just does not pay, in spite of lots of precedent,
> to confuse the two, dual natures of light --
> use one or the other, or pause to explain why,
> you suddenly shift from one perspective
> to the other (no matter how fatuous,
> either is, as it stands) without changing (or
> even briefly considering) the math.
>
> (the example of the "two column proof"
> in projective geometry shows the problem;
> you don't *need* both, and
> you should never mix the proofs!)
>
> > A photon is a directed/pointed wave in the aether which when detected
> > collapses and is detected as a quantum of aether (the ability of the
> > photon to collapse and be detected as a quantum of aether travels a
> > single path while the photon wave travels available paths), or a
> > photon is a quantum of aether creating a displacement wave in the
> > aether, or a photon is something else.
>
> thus:
> the models are very hoary, but not frosty, and
> have been since no body ever modeled a typical glass house,
> including Svente Ahrrenius.  and,
> the reportage is understandably but lamentably selective.
>
> > Meanwhile even the world's best "guess" model, Hansen C, has failed by far.
>
> thus:
> "Most of the newly discovered glaciers are covered with rocky debris;
> continuous freezing and thawing splinters the brittle granite that
> forms some of the park's majestic peaks. Park officials say
> comparisons with historical photos suggest that at least some of the
> glaciers are expanding."
>
> garbage up; garbage down?
>
> thus:
> ah, the treacly doohickey of language --
> not to mention, translation!
>
> if you would jettison the mere mathematical duality
> of the "photon," and stick with the expanding wavefront
> for a while, where'd go your quantum of aether?
>
> if you insist on springing from wave- to particle-
> interpretation for no reason
> -- although all of their properties are dual,
> just like in projective geometry & so on --
> you won't get much that is reasonable; eh?
>
> --l'OEuvre!http://wlym.com

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: How does one do an intergal which contains sqrt(dx) as the intergation element?
Next: Sum of three cubes