Equilibrium in free space
 

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.

I cannot call "that one" one way or another ... I cannot think of a
model to even give me a clue ...

What is your take on that? Is there "a place of true nothing?" I mean,
would the matter from our universe "go there?"; if by no other means,
then by some "form of osmosis?" Or, is our expanding universe "going
there?"

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium in free space
 

John Smith wrote:
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 ...

Maybe "coined the word" rather than "defined it"
would be a better choice since they apparently
defined it wrongly.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium in free space
 

wrote:
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.

I agree that your opinion about my opinion has equal impact.

Seife
makes a great sience writer but he is not a quantum physicist not did
he reference one in his "bibliography".

Like your assertion that transmission line currents are
common-mode, your assertion that Richard P. Feynman is
not a quantum physicist is equally valid.

... Casimir effects have not
been shown not make it possible for TEM fields (waves) to propagate.

Your double-negative makes interpreting your statement
tricky. Most modern physicists believe that fields and
waves are made up of quantum particles of matter/energy.

The Casimir effect has been shown to expose a structure
for universal space through which EM particles propagate.
IMO, it is only a matter of time until cause and effect
is established. In the meanwhile, you could disprove
that cause and effect by proving that "TEM fields (waves)
can propagate outside of the universe in the complete
absence of a space structure.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium in free space
 

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.

Do you really think that your beliefs have an effect
on reality? Why are your unproved personal opinions
so much more valuable and valid than my unproved
personal opinions?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium in free space
 

JB wrote:
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.

We certainly traveled through the medium of space in
order to get to the moon. EM photons obviously travel
through the medium of space.

What you need to prove is that EM photons can travel
somewhere else besides the medium of space, i.e.
outside of the boundaries of the universe.

(P.S. Since "media" is the plural of "medium",
"a media" is improper.)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium in free space
 

John Smith wrote:
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?

Stephen Hawking has predicted that CERN will not
find the Higgs bosom, the only particle in the
Standard Model that has not been detected.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium in free space
 

John Smith wrote:
What is your take on that? Is there "a place of true nothing?" I mean,
would the matter from our universe "go there?"; if by no other means,
then by some "form of osmosis?" Or, is our expanding universe "going
there?"

This is covered by the "Bubble" or "Multiverse" theory.
Between the bubbles, outside of any worm holes, there
exists absolute nothing. An expanding universe "displaces"
the absolute nothing. A particle, like a photon, cannot
"go there" because there is no medium, i.e. no structure.

http://www.space-art.co.uk/pages-en/...-Universes.htm
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Equilibrium in free space
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
This is covered by the "Bubble" or "Multiverse" theory.
Between the bubbles, outside of any worm holes, there
exists absolute nothing. An expanding universe "displaces"
the absolute nothing. A particle, like a photon, cannot
"go there" because there is no medium, i.e. no structure.

http://www.space-art.co.uk/pages-en/...-Universes.htm

Hmmm, I have a hard time believing in this ... no harder than some have
believing in an ether ... LOL

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium in free space
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
Maybe "coined the word" rather than "defined it"
would be a better choice since they apparently
defined it wrongly.

Well, they did know it was a "medium" ... but you are correct, they
didn't get it exactly-correct on the first try.

However, even when Einstein reneged and allowed for an ether, he just
left the subject hanging ...

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium in free space
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
Stephen Hawking has predicted that CERN will not
find the Higgs bosom, the only particle in the
Standard Model that has not been detected.

Yep, it is pretty-much, up-for-grabs. Even the CERN project may fall
short of energy levels required ... but then, you have to start somewhere.

Regards,
JS