wrote:
What, the "amazing" revelation that particles exist in space, even
though for all practicle purposes it can be treated as a vacuum?

The amazing thing is that space cannot exist without
those particles which provide the very structure of
space itself. It seems that space is a property of
matter rather than vice versa.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
The structure may or may not exist.

Think about it. If you were somewhere where the
structure of space didn't exist, you would be
outside of the boundaries of our universe.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:

...
do. Certainly we are a long way from saying that this is an ether or
medium that supports the transmission of TEM waves.

So, let's call it "whipped bananas" and let it go at that ...
traditionally, it has been called the ether or aether ... I just tend to
follow the tradition of the men who first defined it ...

Regards,
JS

On Sep 15, 10:56*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
I reckon most are not although some may be. However, Seif is currently
an associate professor in New York University's Journalism Department
with a Masters in Math. He is nowhere near the caliber of a quantum
physicist which would render your point moot, would it not?

As a matter of fact, it would. From Webster's:
"moot - (1) open to discussion"

Meaning it is arguable as to whether you point is in fact valid. I am
merely trying to show, politely, that your one line assertion has
little or no impact relative to the credibility of the preceding
paragraphs in your post.


Here's what Charles Seife says under "Acknowledgments":
"A lot of people helped me write this book: it's not
possible for me to name them all. Over the past few
years I have interviewed dozens of physicists,
cosmologists, and astronomers who took the time to
explain the nuances of their work to a journalist.


Not exactly an impressive bibliography but typical of something a
journalist, not something a scientific researcher would write. Would a
Phd candidate use Wikipedia as the bibliography in his thesis? Seife
makes a great sience writer but he is not a quantum physicist not did
he reference one in his "bibliography".

I thank them for their enthusiasm and their patience.
They are the reason I wrote "Alpha and Omega" in the
first place." The Bibliography is pretty impressive.

As per my assertion above, nope. Not impressive. For someone writing a
junior high school term paper, yes for a "C" grade. For a scientific
paper, no. It is not even a true bibliography.


But feel free to try to disprove the Casimir effect.

Why would I want to do that? I already agree that the vacuum of space
fluctuates slightly around a zero point because, for example, EM
fields in a volume at vacuum may average zero but the fields
themselves fluctuate around their zero point causing quantum changes
that in turn result in small fluctuations of vacuum.

This does nothing to advance any theory that an ether or media exists
for transmission of TEM waves. It only says that there is no such
thing as a perfectly stable, absolute vacuum when fields of any kind
are present, which they always are. Also your cause and effect seem
reversed; the existence of TEM fields (and static fields as well) may
have been shown to cause Casimir effects but Casimir effects have not
been shown not make it possible for TEM fields (waves) to propagate.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 15, 11:04*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
The structure may or may not exist.

Think about it. If you were somewhere where the
structure of space didn't exist, you would be
outside of the boundaries of our universe.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

You must be assuming that the structure of exotic matter has been
proven to form part of the structure of conventional space. OK, but
that is a great logical leap from theory to fact. Your assertion is
only true if exotic matter truly exists in conventional space. Maybe
it does, maybe it doesn't. Actually, nothing of the sort has been
proven. Far from it. All we know is that in astronomical observations,
extremly large amounts of conventional matter seem to be affected by
gravitational effects, positive or negative depending on theory, by
some invisible entity that behaves as positive or even negative
matter. For convenience sake, some physicists invented the term exotic
or dark matter which may be nothing but a placeholder for some other
entity that behaves like matter which advances their concept but which
we do not understand yet. The observations in no way have confirmed
that it IS matter.

Now, IF it doesn't exist, and I don't believe it does except in
perhaps a virtual sense, then I am still fully inside each of the
boundaries of the 4 accepted dimensions of this Universe.

wrote:
[a "million words" to take the place of ten]

I believe what he said demonstrated an "economy of verbiage."

A ton of verbiage on the point does not alter the point ...

Regards,
JS

What, the "amazing" revelation that particles exist in space, even
though for all practicle purposes it can be treated as a vacuum?

The amazing thing is that space cannot exist without
those particles which provide the very structure of
space itself. It seems that space is a property of
matter rather than vice versa.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Theoretical absolutes don't happen as often as in the space in the head.
You can't convince me that gravity or magnetic fields really require a media
to travel through. Assuming there is one would be a crutch. Didn't stop us
from getting people to the moon and back.

JB wrote:

...
Theoretical absolutes don't happen as often as in the space in the head.
You can't convince me that gravity or magnetic fields really require a media
to travel through. Assuming there is one would be a crutch. Didn't stop us
from getting people to the moon and back.


Although not clearly stated for the "general public", isn't that exactly
what the Hadron project is all about?; splitting matter down to its'
smallest particle(s), and therefore, discovering the "matter" which
space itself is constructed from?

I mean, that is what I expect ...

Regards,
JS

wrote:

...
Now, IF it doesn't exist, and I don't believe it does except in
perhaps a virtual sense, then I am still fully inside each of the
boundaries of the 4 accepted dimensions of this Universe.

Everything we see and hear are brought to us by waves.

If you have trouble with that, explain how polarizing light filters work
with bullets (shooting photons), or how the different wavelengths of
light can be "filtered" (or do you claim these filters are really
"photon sorters? i.e. 'bullet sorters!'") LOL

Why in the h*ll would you bypass a theory which explained the
frequencies of RF (the freqs BETWEEN audio and light) with a totally
different theory?

I tell you, "Some minds BOGGLE the mind!" ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

wrote:

...
Now, IF it doesn't exist, and I don't believe it does except in
perhaps a virtual sense, then I am still fully inside each of the
boundaries of the 4 accepted dimensions of this Universe.

Somehow, you would have to first scrape all present knowledge/theories
and "go back to square one."

As, all theories, even the big bang, count on all matter being "ripped"
from the fabric of space/time itself ... somehow, someway ...

And, while there is the "string theory", this theory still depends on
some type of "particles vibrating." And, the thrust of the whole
argument becomes whether it is the construction of matter itself from
these particles which define "matters properties", or it is "vibrations"
of these particles which define the property matter holds ...

Either way, you begin with some type of particle ... a type of particle
we cannot prove the existence of--yet.

Regards,
JS