Equilibrium in free space
 

On Sep 18, 7:35*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
in 1913 the study of particles was not linked to the four forces of
the standard model
It hasn,t hit the books because there is no series of references that
can be included.

Einstein's paper on special relativity was published in 1905.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Yes but not printed in a text book. Even Plank had to wait for a few
years
and he was a buddy of Einstein where he saw that Einstein was often in
error
Art

Equilibrium in free space
 

On Sep 18, 7:59*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:

[stuff, stuff, and a lot more stuff]

Yep, I think you are on the right path ...

To summarize Cecil:

* "Yep, even the astronaut floating in space cannot empty his bucket!
And, worse than that, no one has ever even seen an empty bucket!
Speculations to what an empty bucket would look like should be able to
be done, however."

If you are out there, Cecil, feel free to correct me ... *;-)

Regards,
JS

I guess the word "empty" has no meaning anymore. Why, an astronaut in
space cannot even carry an empty bucket. I'm sure you would agree that
we should just strike the word from the Webster and Oxford
dictionaries because you, who are immersed in advanced scientific
thought, are convinced that a state of emptiness anywhere in the
universe is impossible. I am truly humbled by your profound reasoning
which I know would not be possible without that little extra touch of
senility that releases you from the confining boundaries of logic. I
assume that the absence of a correction by Mr. Cecil will indicate his
agreement with your tripe. I might also mention that you need not
reach out to Mr. Cecil to validate your bizzare pronouncements. Get
some self-confidence in your statements Johhny, grow a spine!

Equilibrium in free space
 

On Sep 18, 8:20*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:

[ ... ]

You simply take up too much effort on a very small point. *Read this:

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-24.htm

If that doesn't do it for you, or whets your appetite, try this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_24EAAAACAAJ&dq=ether

Regards,
JS

Now I see where you are getting all this sci-fi. Finally. You mistake
a philosophical, abstract ether with the type of physical ether being
inferred in this thread, i.e. the ether that was banished from normal
scientific thought by Einstein in 1905 after publishing the Special
Theory. Kostro is not a scientist, he is a Philosopher of Science who
longs for the old ether concept (I would suppose to assist in his
understanding of the universe) and who claims Einstein really did
believe in a revised concept of ether after 195 or so...no way. He did
not, as a physicist. As a philosopher, for him anything was possible,
even a unified theory. But there is no ether variable or constant that
must be present in order for the relativity calculations to work. It
is the job of a philosopher to analyse these parameters, real or
imagined, and remind us that those concepts we threw over the fence
decades ago MAY still have validity. Philosophically this is true if
in your mind experiments you think there actually may be a connection
between light and an ether medium. But philosophy does not show up in
the math. Kostro correctly states that Einstein himself did not
completely dismiss this notion but that is far cry from resurrecting
another century of ether theory. Nice try Johnny boy.

Equilibrium in free space
 

Equilibrium in free space
 

Equilibrium in free space
 

wrote:
A. I see no induication that the word has changed since at least 1913.
I see no indication of the use of "empty" as a scientific term that
includes absence of space.

You saw that indication a few days ago. I said when
I used the word "empty" or "nothing" in the context
of quantum physics, I was talking about "absolute
nothing", i.e. absence of everything including space.
I have many references that supports that quantum physics
definition of "empty" and "nothing". If you take Webster's
definition literally, "empty" means "containing nothing",
including space, i.e. absolute nothingness.

There is a precedent for defining a common word within
a certain context. My physics book says: "In ordinary
conversation the word "power" is often synonymous with
"energy" or "force". In physics we use a much more precise
definition: *power* is the time rate at which work is done."

I am simply using a much more precise definition for "empty"
and "nothing".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium in free space
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Sorry, I never claimed to know what space is,

Ah, but you did pretend to.

No, I speculated about space and offered my personal
opinion. If that opinion is ever proved wrong, I
will change it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium in free space
 

wrote:
Now I see where you are getting all this sci-fi. Finally. You mistake
a philosophical, abstract ether with the type of physical ether being
inferred in this thread, i.e. the ether that was banished from normal
scientific thought by Einstein in 1905 after publishing the Special
Theory.

Sorry, you are mistaken. Here's a quote of what Einstein said:
"The special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny
the aether. We may assume the existence of an ether, only we
must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, ..."

That's what modern quantum physicists have done. No
"state of motion" is ascribed to the particles winking
in and out of existence in the quantum soup of space.

Also quoting "The History of Modern Science":

"Einstein himself, in his application of relativity
principles to the gravitational theory (1915), supposed
that a gravitating body distorts nearby space, and that
these distortions determine the trajectory of a passing
ponderable body. An entity that can distort its shape,
deflect light, and propagate electric and magnetic
disturbances can be called a void only by discourtesy.
More recently, quantum electrodynamics has filled the
void with a vacuum that undergoes energy fluctuations
and acts as a theater for the creation and annihilation
of virtual particles."

If the void was absolutely empty, there would be nothing
there that could be distorted by gravity. Yet we know that
the void is indeed distorted by gravity. Ergo, the void
is NOT empty in the absolute sense of the word.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium in free space
 

wrote:
... the ether that was banished from normal
scientific thought by Einstein in 1905 after publishing the Special
Theory.

Please correct your incorrect concepts.

Continuing the quote from Einstein: "The special theory
of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist
of particles that can be tracked through time, but the
hypothesis of the ether in itself is not in conflict with
the special theory of relativity."

http://www.nd.edu/~dhoward1/Revisiti...20Dialogue.pdf
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium in free space
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
If the void was absolutely empty, there would be nothing
there that could be distorted by gravity. Yet we know that
the void is indeed distorted by gravity. Ergo, the void
is NOT empty in the absolute sense of the word.

Yeah, exactly!

Or, to reword:

For all this time, what have these idiots been thinking?; blackholes
warp, "empty", nothing? LOL

Regards,
JS