https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-oVPVsCqs4
I believe Sir Ray Davies and the Kinks were fabulous
-Imp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-oVPVsCqs4
Indeed; the evidence is overwhelming.
Although you have DETRACTED from answering the ACTUAL question I posed to you, ONCE AGAIN, you have still made it VERY CLEAR that your answer is No.
WHAT!
How do 'you' define the word 'mental', here?
Being 'bright' or 'not bright' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I have been talking about, and pointing out.
This is ANOTHER ASSUMPTION 'you' have made here.
Is this ALWAYS?
AND, whilst you BELIEVED those 'things', then you were NOT OPEN to ANY thing opposing nor contrary.
In case you are STILL UNAWARE 'think' and 'believe' are two VERY DIFFERENT 'things'.
BUT, 'we' have NEVER discussed, talked about, NOR even mentioned 'believing in the red shift phenomenon'. So, if you can NOT stay focused on what we have been talking about and discussing, then this is going to take even longer.
WHAT?
FINALLY.
Have 'you' forgotten ALREADY?
One that waits, patiently, for those who want to help "themselves".
Is it NOT possible that when you just STOPPED believing (in) ... was true, FIRST, and then that is when you could SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS?
As it happens I still don't know what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, because you won't tell me.
I wouldn't describe my behaviour so skittishly; there is some consideration of the evidence. I don't remember the entire sequence of thoughts, but when I first saw my father leaving presents at the foot of the bed, my immediate reaction was to reconcile that datum with my contemporary hypothesis. Perhaps Father Christmas only delivered to the bottom of the chimney - he's a busy man after all. Then at some point, I started doing the maths; even allowing for magic, delivering presents to every good child on the planet in the space of 24 hours is untenable. Then there were the different Santas in different locations and times. Eventually the weight of evidence persuaded me that my original hypothesis was incorrect, and I adjusted my belief accordingly. Similarly with the expansion of the universe. Until the Hubble observations of distant supernovae, I didn't doubt that gravity was slowing cosmic expansion; the only question was whether gravity would slow the expansion to a halt, and then perhaps cause contraction. Evidently you are familiar with all the evidence but have interpreted in a different way. How do you explain cosmological red-shift?
Thee ACTUAL Truth in regards to 'what', EXACTLY?
Is a 'contemporary hypothesis' really a 'belief'?uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 12:57 pmI wouldn't describe my behaviour so skittishly; there is some consideration of the evidence. I don't remember the entire sequence of thoughts, but when I first saw my father leaving presents at the foot of the bed, my immediate reaction was to reconcile that datum with my contemporary hypothesis.
So, now you BELIEVE wholeheartedly and without ANY doubt at all that father christmas is NOT real, correct?uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 12:57 pm Perhaps Father Christmas only delivered to the bottom of the chimney - he's a busy man after all. Then at some point, I started doing the maths; even allowing for magic, delivering presents to every good child on the planet in the space of 24 hours is untenable. Then there were the different Santas in different locations and times. Eventually the weight of evidence persuaded me that my original hypothesis was incorrect, and I adjusted my belief accordingly.
LOL "expansion of the universe".
WHY did you NOT doubt 'that'?
Okay.
How I explain 'cosmological red-shift' is by saying that 'cosmological red-shift is the explanation, and/or the evidence said to be, for galaxies moving away from us'.
So having accepted that cosmological red-shift is a genuine phenomenon, you now accept that it is "said to be" evidence for galaxies moving away. Do you accept that galaxies moving away from us explains cosmological red-shift, or do you have an alternative explanation?
But, I have ALWAYS accepted that 'red-shift' is "said to be" evidence for galaxies moving away.
I have ALWAYS accepted that galaxies moving away from us explains cosmological red-shift.
Special relativity offers us a view of spacer whereby it is substantial without being material. It is a vacuum but it is dimensionally substantial; it can bend and warp. Whilst this might seem to engender the resussitation of the notion of Aether, I do not think this is valid. We still has a vacuum; but we are more able to say what a vacuum is. The logic of using aether as a theory was because people found the notion of "action at a distance", through a vacuum, difficult to accept, and so to accept ideas surrounding gravity, especially in the time of Newton, aether was invented as a model. Call it what you like aether, crystal spheres, the adaption of vacuum, proved to exist by the Royal Society contemporaneously by Boyle superceeded aether.uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:55 am The wikipedia page on Aether Theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories cites Nobel Prize winning physicist Robert B. Laughlin:
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
Pretty much any realist theory about matter that doesn't invoke Ancient Greek atomos - uncuttable - atoms, is some version of an aether theory. Much better to call any such idea a quantum field theory for the reasons given above.
I think it comes down to the difference between what is useful and what is true. Special relativity is useful for describing and predicting the effect of motion on observations/measurements. Like Newtonian gravity, you don't need to understand the mechanism to do the maths; space is simply distance and in mathematics, you can do anything you like to quantities, lines and planes; it's just numbers. General relativity is a refinement of both special relativity and Newtonian gravity; it is predicated on space being a material with specific mechanical properties - it bends and warps in a particular way for particular reasons. The mathematics of general relativity is more broadly applicable and more accurate than SR and NG, but you are right that it is not valid to conclude that more accurate = more true.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:09 pmSpecial relativity offers us a view of spacer whereby it is substantial without being material. It is a vacuum but it is dimensionally substantial; it can bend and warp. Whilst this might seem to engender the resussitation of the notion of Aether, I do not think this is valid.
The particular model that Newton responded to was Descartes' vortex theory, endorsed by Leibniz. The idea was that space is made of tiny corpuscles and that these are swept around by the sun. At a push this could explain the orbits of the then known planets, but as Newton pointed out, the orbits of comets cut across planetary orbits with no effect. For Newton, it was light that is corpuscular, hence its ability to travel through void. Two centuries later, Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize for his discovery of the photo-electric effect, which emphasises the particle-like qualities of light, which again makes their travel through a void more easily tenable.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:09 pmWe still has a vacuum; but we are more able to say what a vacuum is. The logic of using aether as a theory was because people found the notion of "action at a distance", through a vacuum, difficult to accept, and so to accept ideas surrounding gravity, especially in the time of Newton, aether was invented as a model. Call it what you like aether, crystal spheres, the adaption of vacuum, proved to exist by the Royal Society contemporaneously by Boyle superceeded aether.
The name aether has too much baggage. For anyone who takes the big bang theory seriously, the question is what went bang? Was is just a load of mathematics, or is the universe made of some stuff? If it is made of stuff, did all of it end up as matter? Getting back to what is useful and what is true, the answer for practical purposes is 'Who cares?', the truth makes no difference to the maths.
Cheers.uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 03, 2021 8:17 amI think it comes down to the difference between what is useful and what is true. Special relativity is useful for describing and predicting the effect of motion on observations/measurements. Like Newtonian gravity, you don't need to understand the mechanism to do the maths; space is simply distance and in mathematics, you can do anything you like to quantities, lines and planes; it's just numbers. General relativity is a refinement of both special relativity and Newtonian gravity; it is predicated on space being a material with specific mechanical properties - it bends and warps in a particular way for particular reasons. The mathematics of general relativity is more broadly applicable and more accurate than SR and NG, but you are right that it is not valid to conclude that more accurate = more true.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:09 pmSpecial relativity offers us a view of spacer whereby it is substantial without being material. It is a vacuum but it is dimensionally substantial; it can bend and warp. Whilst this might seem to engender the resussitation of the notion of Aether, I do not think this is valid.The particular model that Newton responded to was Descartes' vortex theory, endorsed by Leibniz. The idea was that space is made of tiny corpuscles and that these are swept around by the sun. At a push this could explain the orbits of the then known planets, but as Newton pointed out, the orbits of comets cut across planetary orbits with no effect. For Newton, it was light that is corpuscular, hence its ability to travel through void. Two centuries later, Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize for his discovery of the photo-electric effect, which emphasises the particle-like qualities of light, which again makes their travel through a void more easily tenable.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:09 pmWe still has a vacuum; but we are more able to say what a vacuum is. The logic of using aether as a theory was because people found the notion of "action at a distance", through a vacuum, difficult to accept, and so to accept ideas surrounding gravity, especially in the time of Newton, aether was invented as a model. Call it what you like aether, crystal spheres, the adaption of vacuum, proved to exist by the Royal Society contemporaneously by Boyle superceeded aether.The name aether has too much baggage. For anyone who takes the big bang theory seriously, the question is what went bang? Was is just a load of mathematics, or is the universe made of some stuff? If it is made of stuff, did all of it end up as matter? Getting back to what is useful and what is true, the answer for practical purposes is 'Who cares?', the truth makes no difference to the maths.
Thank you for bringing this thread back to earth.
Do not confuse physical / real space (the only reality) with mathematical space (idea). Empty physical space = aether, has a regular 4-D structure and grows (condenses / crystallizes) by velocity of ~c from the "future". Structural disorders / defects of physical space (=elementary particles) manifest as matter.Age wrote: ↑Fri May 28, 2021 1:56 pmWhich is, OBVIOUSLY, IMPOSSIBLE. That is; if one wants to look at and see thee ACTUAL Truth of things.Cerveny wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 7:34 amPurpose of aether is to create physical space...Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:52 pm is the purpose of the Aether similar to the square root of negative one?
-Imp
By definition 'space' is NOT and can NOT be physical. This is WHY the words 'space' AND 'matter' are used. And, thee One and ONLY Universe can ONLY work in this way of, and with, 'space' AND 'matter'.
EVERY is created by the coming together of, at least, two other things, and it is 'space' AND 'matter', together, which is needed for ANY thing else to be created.
How do 'you', "cerveny", define the word 'space'?Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 3:40 pmDo not confuse physical / real space (the only reality) with mathematical space (idea). Empty physical space = aether, has a regular 4-D structure and grows (condenses / crystallizes) by velocity of ~c from the "future". Structural disorders / defects of physical space (=elementary particles) manifest as matter.Age wrote: ↑Fri May 28, 2021 1:56 pmWhich is, OBVIOUSLY, IMPOSSIBLE. That is; if one wants to look at and see thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
By definition 'space' is NOT and can NOT be physical. This is WHY the words 'space' AND 'matter' are used. And, thee One and ONLY Universe can ONLY work in this way of, and with, 'space' AND 'matter'.
EVERY is created by the coming together of, at least, two other things, and it is 'space' AND 'matter', together, which is needed for ANY thing else to be created.