Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
-
- Posts: 4369
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
even the French have no use for loose smoke
-Imp
-Imp
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
Careless torque costs lives.Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:06 pmSculptor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:46 am There is only one valid response to such a question..
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IDvHMEqf03c/hqdefault.jpg
we need more torque...
-Imp
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
Sartre might have disagreed with you.
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
Wadda ya mean "history exists?"Cerveny wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:31 pm It seems clear that the past / history must exist. Many physical phenomena / effects strictly depend on the rate of changes. This information must be stored / accessible somewhere, to the causality / physics can work. This information is expressed by the tensions in latest structure of history.
PS: Similar (orthogonal) deformations in the internal structure of History cause, for example, the gravitational force ...
"History" has two clear and distinct meanings.
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
History/past exists as a matrix/pattern for next Planck’s time sediments of time...Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:58 amWadda ya mean "history exists?"Cerveny wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:31 pm It seems clear that the past / history must exist. Many physical phenomena / effects strictly depend on the rate of changes. This information must be stored / accessible somewhere, to the causality / physics can work. This information is expressed by the tensions in latest structure of history.
PS: Similar (orthogonal) deformations in the internal structure of History cause, for example, the gravitational force ...
"History" has two clear and distinct meanings.
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
Bollocks.Cerveny wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:52 amHistory/past exists as a matrix/pattern for next Planck’s time sediments of time...Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:58 amWadda ya mean "history exists?"Cerveny wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:31 pm It seems clear that the past / history must exist. Many physical phenomena / effects strictly depend on the rate of changes. This information must be stored / accessible somewhere, to the causality / physics can work. This information is expressed by the tensions in latest structure of history.
PS: Similar (orthogonal) deformations in the internal structure of History cause, for example, the gravitational force ...
"History" has two clear and distinct meanings.
The past is over. There is only now.
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
These (3-D) Planck’s time sediments/crystal layers are gluing to the frozen, settled History/past (4-D) by quantum/live process, where we live...
Last edited by Cerveny on Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10012
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:57 amCareless torque costs lives.Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:06 pmSculptor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:46 am There is only one valid response to such a question..
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IDvHMEqf03c/hqdefault.jpg
we need more torque...
-Imp
I might have to put you into the Bastard File.
.
- Attachments
-
- Sculptor heading into the Bastard File.jpg (12.42 KiB) Viewed 5573 times
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
Modern name of ''Aether'' is Cosmic Vacuum . . .
Cosmic Vacuum is a home for all matter (gravity and virtual)
Cosmic Vacuum is a home for all matter (gravity and virtual)
- Attachments
-
- AETHER.jpg (8.95 KiB) Viewed 4758 times
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
Which 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.
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
What 'problems' do 'you' have, which you are still, so called, "getting your head around".uwot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:05 amBlimey impenitent, I'm not enough of a mathematician to answer that, but being a loudmouth I'll do so anyway. As I understand it i is what you have to multiply by itself to get -1. Any number you multiply by i is somewhere above the number line, the string of 'real' numbers that stretches from -infinity to +infinity. Apparently such 'complex numbers' are useful for erm, things - it appears in calculations and helps make things work. Aether on the other hand is a conceptual tool. You could argue that the 'spacetime' of General Relativity is an 'aether', as Einstein actually did, and as I said above, you can make a case for the Higgs Field. Long story short: one is useful for getting your head around problems, the other is useful for actually solving them.Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:52 pm is the purpose of the Aether similar to the square root of negative one?
-Imp
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:09 pmYep, can't argue with that. The point I was trying to make is that while some scientific models include ontological 'conceptual tools', some don't - at least as I think of them. So for instance, in Newton's treatment, 'the force of gravity' is a conceptual tool that explains why and how much massive bodies affect each other.Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:32 pmbut the language of math is nothing but a conceptual tool (as is any language...)
The 'how much' is the maths and the empirical success of that maths; the 'why' is fully answered by 'because there is a force' - which is obviously true from the 'how much'. That's all epistemological - how do you know there is a force of gravity? Because the trajectories of massive objects are demonstrably affected by them. It's physics.
BUT that does NOT explain the WHY at all, let alone "fully answer".
Learning and understanding how thee Universe ACTUALLY works EXPLAINS WHY massive, minute, an ALL bodies affect each other.
Thinking about gravity in that way WILL lead you astray.uwot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:09 pm Einstein's General Relativity goes beyond the maths and the epistemological conceptual tool that is the force of gravity - beyond physics and into metaphysics. It claims there is a substance called 'spacetime', of which the presence of matter changes the topology, and this is the cause of gravity. 'Spacetime', in this instance, is ontological/metaphysical - it's not needed for the maths, but thinking about gravity in that way might give you insights that the bare Newtonian 'force of gravity' won't.
In that video;uwot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:09 pm Gonna make an appeal to authority here. Anyone who has read this far and hasn't seen this clip of Richard Feynman make the same point should do theirselves a favour and watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-kThey do, don't they?Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:32 pmlots of non-empirical entities seem to appear in explanations
"suppose we have two such theories how are we going to decide with one is right?"
Is a completely ABSURD question, with an ALREADY PRESUMED outcome.
What would make a person even being to imagine, let alone believe, that one theory is even right to start with?
'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was written, were so far 'backwards' in your assumptions that theorizing was the way forward, that this BACKWARD measure was leading to your demise.
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
"competing truths" is an oxy-moronImpenitent wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:42 pm thanks for the explanation...
competing truths are interesting...
-Imp
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
And, how much time do these, so called, "physicists" need for the rest of 'humanity' to work out if they have ANY idea about what they are talking about. They are, after all, just making up these assumptions, and guesses, and then being continually proven WRONG.uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:42 amI really think it depends on who you are talking to. It is true that some physicists are catatonic in the presence of philosophers, some are apoplectic and some will give you as much time as it takes them to work out if you have any idea what you are talking about.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:00 amI agree with Paradigmer on this. I've also experienced the 'taboo' of daring to even speak of any difference of opinion on this matter.
In other words, just say words that captures 'their' attention, and then they will listen to you, no matter if the words have NOTHING AT ALL to do with what is ACTUALLY REAL and True.uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:42 am They're a lot like human beings these physicists. It is true that the word 'aether' acts as a kind of filter, being a word that physicists fairly consistently relegate to philosophers or cranks, but it's just a word which, as Robert Laughlin says "rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum". If you want to buy an extra 20 seconds or so of a physicist's attention, just call whatever you think the universe is made of something like 'the fabric of spacetime' or better yet a 'quantum field' - anything but aether.
WHAT thee Universe is ACTUALLY made up of, and, HOW thee Universe ACTUALLY works is about the SIMPLEST and EASIEST thing to learn AND understand.