|
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 17, 5:16*pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: One would first have to presume to know what space is in order to stipulate the conditions for its existence. We know space exists and according to quantum physics, nothing except particles exist. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that, if quantum physics is correct, then space must be constructed of particles albeit possibly as yet undiscovered and possibly unmeasurable particles. And with that you feel that you can claim to know what space 'is'. It must be just marvelous to be you. *:-) ac6xg Jim If I drew a vacuum on a bottle on earth and then let the black hole apply its forces upon the innards of the bottle would it extract any thing more than the operation on earth? I kinda look at the black hole as the datum level of maximum force as a reaction to the big bang and that datum is not the same as that on earth. Thus a vacuum on earth is not a perfect vacuum in terrestial form. Quite a quandry for me when determining what nothing is and when a implosion would occur. Frankly Jim I don't feel what nothing is can be answered Very best regards Art |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 17, 6:01*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: ... I disagree since empty space is also "nothing" as defined in this universe. Empty space,in locii where the exotic paricles do not exist, needs no structure. It is that without structure. You need to update your knowledge to the 21st century. "Empty" space has been proved not to be empty and therefore not "nothing". -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com Please show me the reference that proves empty is not nothing and I will prove by definition of the word empty that empty is not something. This is true even in the 21st centruy. |
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
We know space exists and according to quantum physics, nothing except particles exist. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that, if quantum physics is correct, then space must be constructed of particles albeit possibly as yet undiscovered and possibly unmeasurable particles. No strings allowed then? ;) tom K0TAR |
Equilibrium in free space
Art Unwin wrote:
Jim If I drew a vacuum on a bottle on earth and then let the black hole apply its forces upon the innards of the bottle would it extract any thing more than the operation on earth? I kinda look at the black hole as the datum level of maximum force as a reaction to the big bang and that datum is not the same as that on earth. Thus a vacuum on earth is not a perfect vacuum in terrestial form. Quite a quandry for me when determining what nothing is and when a implosion would occur. Frankly Jim I don't feel what nothing is can be answered Very best regards Art So you are saying that the quantum foam would disappear because of the black hole? Ever hear of Hawking Radiation? Bet Cecil and I agree on this one. tom K0TAR |
Equilibrium in free space
JB wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... JB wrote: So you are trying to tell me that if I completely evacuate a sealed glass jar it then contains space? Casimir effect experiments have been run in a vacuum and proved there is lots of "stuff" still there even in empty space. There is no such thing as nothingness, at least not within the space of our universe. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Ok now yer giving me a headache by explaining an observation on theories based upon theories base upon theories. In the Casimir experiments, there are plates or shapes deliberately placed in the vacuum. Quantum theory goes too far into the theoretical for my taste. It is a curious mental and mathematical exercise but it reminds me of Leibnitz' Monad theory of existence. It doesn't help me with antenna performance. Go there without me. The Casimir effect is NOT theory. It's pretty easily detected and measured, as quantum things go. tom K0TAR |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 17, 8:57*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: Jim If I drew a vacuum on a bottle on earth and then let the black hole apply its forces upon the innards of the bottle would it extract any thing more than the operation on earth? I kinda look at the black hole as the datum level of maximum force as a reaction to the big bang and that datum is not the same as that on earth. Thus a vacuum on earth is not a perfect vacuum in terrestial form. Quite a quandry for me when determining what nothing is and when a implosion would occur. Frankly Jim I don't feel what nothing is can be answered Very best regards Art So you are saying that the quantum foam would disappear because of the black hole? *Ever hear of Hawking Radiation? Bet Cecil and I agree on this one. tom K0TAR No I am not saying anything I was asking for Jim's thoughts on the matter. He is a straight shooter and I admit to having tunnel vision and this sort of stuff is outside my focus. On the question....No I have not heard of Hawkings radiation. I am aware that he does not agree CERN will be successfull and that he is also trying for a divorce, nothing more. and that includes quantum foam which stays in the bottle possibly. Art |
Equilibrium in free space
Art Unwin wrote:
If I drew a vacuum on a bottle on earth and then let the black hole apply its forces upon the innards of the bottle would it extract any thing more than the operation on earth? An interesting question. Assuming a perfect vacuum and the entire bottle outside of the event horizon of the stationary black hole, would the black hole ever eat the bottle? I suspect the black hole would collapse space inside the bottle on its way to eating the bottle. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
wrote:
Please show me the reference that proves empty is not nothing and I will prove by definition of the word empty that empty is not something. This is true even in the 21st centruy. If you chose to use colloquial English, you have to live (or die) by fuzzy unscientific definitions. The definition for "empty" that I have been using here is "absolute nothing", i.e. no space and not even the structure of space is there. I defined my use of the word "empty" days ago. It is the same as a *literal* interpretation of the definition from Websters's: "empty - 1. containing nothing", i.e. literally "empty - containing absolutely nothing including space" -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
Tom Ring wrote:
So you are saying that the quantum foam would disappear because of the black hole? Ever hear of Hawking Radiation? Bet Cecil and I agree on this one. I'm sure we agree *in the long run* that the black hole would eventually dissipate. In the short term, I would guess that the black hole would eat the bottle. I wonder if our universe is nothing more than Hawking Radiation? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
JB wrote:
... It doesn't help me with antenna performance. Go there without me. I can see the "spirit" you said that in, however, that statement could not be further from the truth ... "it" (or "those" theories and "ponderings"--space-structure/ether) is the whole reason why a signal gets from point a to point b ... We cannot know if there are possibly better ways to manipulate this/these mediums, or if it is possible to design antennas "better" to manipulate "it", until we know what "it" is ... barring "dumb luck" and someone just "stumbles" onto some antenna which shows some improvement, somehow. But yes; build something from present-day data/technology, it looks as if all this is going to take a bit before we know. Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
John Smith wrote:
... if all this is going to take a bit before we know. How about a repeater that utilizes entangled photons? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: ... if all this is going to take a bit before we know. How about a repeater that utilizes entangled photons? Cecil: If I had not seen direct cases of where truth is stranger than fiction .... I'd laugh. ;-) Krist, who knows? Someone could be building one in their garage right now! :-P Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 18, 8:07*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Please show me the reference that proves empty is not nothing and I will prove by definition of the word empty that empty is not something. This is true even in the 21st centruy. If you chose to use colloquial English, you have to live (or die) by fuzzy unscientific definitions. The definition for "empty" that I have been using here is "absolute nothing", i.e. no space and not even the structure of space is there. I defined my use of the word "empty" days ago. It is the same as a *literal* interpretation of the definition from Websters's: "empty - 1. containing nothing", i.e. literally "empty - containing absolutely nothing including space" -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com From Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 : 1. Containing nothing; not holding or having anything within; void of contents or appropriate contents; not filled; -- said of an inclosure, or a container, as a box, room, house, etc.; as, an empty chest, room, purse, or pitcher; an empty stomach; empty shackles. [1913 Webster] 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. B. It is obvious from the above definition that "empty" includes the presence of space, otherwise there would be no locus of points which could be characterized as empty. Another way to say it is, in the absence of space, there is nothing to be empty. Without space, the word "empty" has no utility or purpose. |
Equilibrium in free space
|
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 18, 6:47*pm, wrote:
On Sep 18, 8:07*am, Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: Please show me the reference that proves empty is not nothing and I will prove by definition of the word empty that empty is not something. This is true even in the 21st centruy. If you chose to use colloquial English, you have to live (or die) by fuzzy unscientific definitions. The definition for "empty" that I have been using here is "absolute nothing", i.e. no space and not even the structure of space is there. I defined my use of the word "empty" days ago. It is the same as a *literal* interpretation of the definition from Websters's: "empty - 1. containing nothing", i.e. literally "empty - containing absolutely nothing including space" -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com From Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 : *1. Containing nothing; not holding or having anything within; * * * * void of contents or appropriate contents; not filled; -- * * * * said of an inclosure, or a container, as a box, room, * * * * house, etc.; as, an empty chest, room, purse, or pitcher; * * * * an empty stomach; empty shackles. * * * * [1913 Webster] 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. B. It is obvious from the above definition that "empty" includes the presence of space, otherwise there would be no locus of points which could be characterized as empty. Another way to say it is, in the absence of space, there is nothing to be empty. Without space, the word "empty" has no utility or purpose. 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. No book no need for a revised dictionary no need for change Re obvious.. a word used when supporting logic is not readily available Art Art |
Equilibrium in free space
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 |
Equilibrium in free space
wrote:
[ ... ] How about a 1894, download-able .pdf "book?": http://books.google.com/books?id=_rU...her #PPP10,M1 (Look in the top right hand corner for the download link ... I include this particular book for historical reasons. ;-) ) Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
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. |
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: And with that you feel that you can claim to know what space 'is'. Sorry, I never claimed to know what space is, Ah, but you did pretend to. 73, ac6xg |
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 |
Equilibrium in free space
wrote:
... the ether that was banished from normal scientific thought by Einstein in 1905 after publishing the Special Theory. Continuing quotes from Einstein: http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations,; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation." "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only wonld be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." So much for the ether being banished by Einstein. What is it about Einstein's words, "the ether of the general theory of relativity", that you do not understand? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
... So much for the ether being banished by Einstein. What is it about Einstein's words, "the ether of the general theory of relativity", that you do not understand? Oh please, he claims not to understand ANY of it--everything he reads/has-read/learned/etc. claims the opposite ... :-( The only thing left? He then claims this has all been a "cleaver ploy!" ROFLOL Now, let me see, what ignoramuses have I seen using this "cleaver ploy" in the past ... Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 19, 8:59*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
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...-Bohr%20Dialog... -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com No correction needed. This ether, i.e. the one which in your words which the special theory of relativity forbids us to assume that it consists of particles that can be tracked through time, is forbidden by relativity. This is obviously the ether that was effectively "banished" when Special Relativity came out in 1905 due to time dilation effects when applying the Lorentz transformation. That was not to say that another type of ether could not exist. I was very very precise about that in my post. I know that Einstein later on did not try to dispute that a different type of ether could exist. My point was that Einstein himself did NOT hypothesize, postulate or theorize that such an ether DID exist. Kostro seems to think Einstein did theorize a new ether and that is wrong. That is where you and Jimminy Cricket Smith are going off track. Suggest you re-read it. |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 19, 9:00*am, John Smith wrote:
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 me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 19, 9:27*am, John Smith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: ... So much for the ether being banished by Einstein. What is it about Einstein's words, "the ether of the general theory of relativity", that you do not understand? Oh please, he claims not to understand ANY of it--everything he reads/has-read/learned/etc. claims the opposite ... :-( The only thing left? *He then claims this has all been a "cleaver ploy!" * ROFLOL Now, let me see, what ignoramuses have I seen using this "cleaver ploy" in the past ... Regards, JS me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too |
Equilibrium in free space
wrote:
My point was that Einstein himself did NOT hypothesize, postulate or theorize that such an ether DID exist. That's incorrect. I've added a quote from Einstein himself to my tag line below. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein |
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
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. I see. Well, at the time it sounded more like you were saying "The amazing thing is that space cannot exist without those particles which provide the very structure of space itself." Which seems to presume to know what space is. If that opinion is ever proved wrong, I will change it. All the while shouting demeaning epithets, and ever after claiming to have never held the opinion in the first place. :-) 73, ac6xg |
Equilibrium in free space
|
Equilibrium in free space
|
Equilibrium in free space
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com