Quite an interesting development ...
 

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1106....2011.346.html

Is it finally a valid way in which we can interact/view the invisible?

Regards,
JS

Quite an interesting development ...
 

On Jun 23, 12:13*am, John Smith wrote:
Is it finally a valid way in which we can interact/view the invisible?

Not only does the aether actually exist, it can be photographed.:) The
error that the old-time physicists made was assuming that the aether
was made of ordinary matter instead of exotic quantum particles.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Quite an interesting development ...
 

On 6/23/2011 6:10 AM, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 23, 12:13 am, John wrote:
Is it finally a valid way in which we can interact/view the invisible?

Not only does the aether actually exist, it can be photographed.:) The
error that the old-time physicists made was assuming that the aether
was made of ordinary matter instead of exotic quantum particles.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

I thought you might enjoy that Cecil ... I know you were really worried
that RF would be failing us soon, due to a lack of suitable media ...
ROFLOL!

I am sure you noticed these "jewels in the article:"

"The limit means that more virtual photons exist outside the mirrors
than between them, creating a force that pushes the plates together.
This 'Casimir force' is strong enough at short distances for scientists
to physically measure it." -- From the article, itself.

"David - Dr. Wilson's article (ref. 1 for the article) is the source of
my statement that linear acceleration cannot produce "this effect". It
seems that "this effect" is the dynamical Casimir effect. The Unruh
effect is something different (but definitely related). In any case, I
thank you for your clarification." -- From a post, further down.

Things are happening ... finally the squeeky wheel gets some much needed
maintenance ...

Regards,
JS

Quite an interesting development ...
 

On 6/23/2011 9:10 AM, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 23, 12:13 am, John wrote:
Is it finally a valid way in which we can interact/view the invisible?

Not only does the aether actually exist, it can be photographed.:) The
error that the old-time physicists made was assuming that the aether
was made of ordinary matter instead of exotic quantum particles.

Do you actually see any relation between quanta and aether theory?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Quite an interesting development ...
 

On 6/23/2011 4:11 PM, Mike Coslo wrote:

[nothing, really ...]

Seems even Einstein removed it from the realm of "ponderable media", and
you have known all along, what it is ... enlighten the rest of us, and
we can see the revelation you have had!

And, let me see, ether vs. quantum sized particles? Any relationship?
NAAAA! ROFLOL!

It is like Einstein was never understood in the first place. It is like
this is the first time these people have been exposed to what he said,
like they will need time to digest all this ... simply amazing ...
correct me if I am mistaken, but the ether defines our very matter and
describes the laws which that matter must obey, right? The ether is the
rod and measure, right? If a universal clock and time frame exists, it
exists only within the ether, right?

If you don't say yes to all the above, I can only think you a kook, or
unable to understand what has been written and, generally, accepted ...
of course, it is being questioned, as it should be ...

"He went on to add ‘We’re in a very special moment of history, because
we are like fish who finally realized we were living in water."
http://thedartmouth.com/2010/05/07/news/space

All I know is the ether is a media, it is invisible to us, its'
properties can only be "deduced" (or, guessed at), or seen though its'
action/effects on "our matter. Yet, you can now tell me that the ether
is NOT the subject of that article ... I'd say you either:

1) Have knowledge no other man has.

2) Have iron balls the size of bowling balls.

3) Are a moron.

I am pretty close to making up my mind ... ROFLOL!

If the ether is ever denied, it will be because some idiot, such as
yourself, will step up and say, once it is fully "discovered", "THAT
ISN'T IT! BECAUSE OF _BLANK_ ." And, attempt to ignore that Einstein,
and very PURPOSEFULLY, left a place marker for the gravitational ether,
in removing it from the realm of ponderable matter ... so, whatever IS
the media which carries light and RF, whatever the media is which
establishes the speed limit on light, whatever media is the UTF
(universal time frame), whatever media composes "spacetime", "quantum
foam", that IS the ether ...

What the hell are you looking for, easter eggs? Or, just some
half-baked ego-centered way to deny ether? Really, I can't even see the
purpose, just the insanity!

Regards,
JS

Quite an interesting development ...
 

On 6/23/2011 6:11 PM, Mike Coslo wrote:
On 6/23/2011 9:10 AM, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 23, 12:13 am, John wrote:
Is it finally a valid way in which we can interact/view the invisible?

Not only does the aether actually exist, it can be photographed.:) The
error that the old-time physicists made was assuming that the aether
was made of ordinary matter instead of exotic quantum particles.

Do you actually see any relation between quanta and aether theory?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


Mike -

Disregard this troll character. He attempts to disrupt the s.e.design
group with his spewing venom to no end.

He apparently has no life except to make people respond to him on news
groups.

73,
John

Quite an interesting development ...
 

"Cecil Moore" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Jun 23, 12:13 am, John Smith wrote:
Is it finally a valid way in which we can interact/view the invisible?

Not only does the aether actually exist, it can be photographed.:) The
error that the old-time physicists made was assuming that the aether
was made of ordinary matter instead of exotic quantum particles.

Faraday's aether was made of ions and electrons (like copper). Todays space
is made of rare plasma and dust. The most of old-time physicists need the
exotic aether to explain the light polarization. For Faraday the rare plasma
and its vibrations are enough to explain all phenomena.
S*

Quite an interesting development ...
 

On Jun 23, 6:11*pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Do you actually see any relation between quanta and aether theory?

Looks like you assumed I was making an exclusive assertion when it was
actually inclusive. What I was saying is that all the people on the
opposite side of the argument from the existence of an aether, i.e.
the people who argued that a perfect vacuum is absolute nothingness,
have been proved wrong. There is indeed a structure inside a perfect
vacuum and "quantum aether" is just as good a name for that structure
as any other words. I suggest we convert from "luminiferous aether" to
"quantum aether" and be done with it.

Note that EM waves cannot propagate through absolute nothingness.
That's why light cannot escape the boundaries of the universe.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Quite an interesting development ...
 

On 6/24/2011 10:16 AM, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 23, 6:11 pm, Mike wrote:
Do you actually see any relation between quanta and aether theory?

Looks like you assumed I was making an exclusive assertion when it was
actually inclusive.

Okay, Cecil - now work phlogiston theory into this, and I'll buy you a beer.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Quite an interesting development ...
 

On 6/24/2011 3:20 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"Cecil napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Jun 23, 12:13 am, John wrote:
Is it finally a valid way in which we can interact/view the invisible?

Not only does the aether actually exist, it can be photographed.:) The
error that the old-time physicists made was assuming that the aether
was made of ordinary matter instead of exotic quantum particles.

Faraday's aether was made of ions and electrons (like copper). Todays space
is made of rare plasma and dust. The most of old-time physicists need the
exotic aether to explain the light polarization. For Faraday the rare plasma
and its vibrations are enough to explain all phenomena.
S*



Oh good, he's back.

Been kind of dull without the "Coast to Coast" style antenna designers.

tom
K0TAR

Quite an interesting development ...
 

On Jun 24, 7:17*pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Okay, Cecil - now work phlogiston theory into this, and I'll buy you a beer.

Exactly what is wrong with the concept of a "quantum aether"?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Quite an interesting development ...
 

"Cecil Moore" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Jun 24, 7:17 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Okay, Cecil - now work phlogiston theory into this, and I'll buy you a
beer.

Exactly what is wrong with the concept of a "quantum aether"?

And what about of Dirac see: "The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the
vacuum as an infinite sea of particles with negative energy".
S*

Quite an interesting development ...
 

On 6/28/2011 11:38 AM, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 24, 7:17 pm, Mike wrote:
Okay, Cecil - now work phlogiston theory into this, and I'll buy you a beer.

Exactly what is wrong with the concept of a "quantum aether"?

So is this like the aether that acts as a transport medium, or is it
like quanta, that pop into and out of existence?

And that's where I have the issue. Use of the two terms like that is
confusing. I find that some like to invoke the term as some sort of
vindication of previous ideas, some just invoke a superficial
resemblance. I remember when I first learned of quantum soup, I
immediately thought of aether, but after ten seconds or so, I figured it
was a very superficial resemblance only.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Quite an interesting development ...
 

On 6/28/2011 2:16 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

And what about of Dirac see: "The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the
vacuum as an infinite sea of particles with negative energy".


It's still not aether, it's an awkward prediction of infinite energy.

As incredibly cool as I think that would be, I suspect that we're going
to find that there is an equal and opposite effect going on.

If it's real, then Arthur C Clark predicted not only a whole lot of
energy, but a heat crisis to boot. Know how that would happen?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Quite an interesting development ...
 

On Jul 4, 8:04*pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
So is this like the aether that acts as a transport medium, or is it
like quanta, that pop into and out of existence?

Change the "or" to "and" and you've got it. It is quanta that pop into
and out of existence that acts as a transport medium for EM waves. EM
waves cannot propagate without "it" as a medium. That's why EM waves
cannot escape the universe - witness the 12+ billion year old
background radiation still propagating through the quantum aether to
this very day.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Quite an interesting development ...
 

On Jul 5, 4:50*pm, "Sal" wrote:
I infer that a perfect vacuum wouldn't propagate EM waves.

Wrong - a perfect vacuum teems with the quantum soup and therefore
does propagate EM waves. What will not propagate EM waves is the
absence of the quantum soup, i.e. absolute nothingness which surrounds
the known universe..
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Quite an interesting development ...
 

On Jul 6, 1:59*pm, "Sal" wrote:
I see "quantum soup" referred to in the context of the time immediately
after the Big Bang. *How would you describe the latter-day quantum soup?

After the time when the universe changed from being opaque to being
transparent to EM light waves, a dilution of the quantum soup has
occurred. The increase in the wavelength of the Big-Bang energy is
proportional to the expansion of the universe. When the quantum soup
gets diluted enough to cease its expansion pressure, gravity will take
over and the universe will collapse into another singularity - ad
infinitum - just as it has "always" been. The quantum soup is like a
spring that releases expansion energy for a time and then stores
collapsing energy for a time. What could possibly have more inertia
than the entire universe?

P.S. It's hard to talk about the passing of time when time is known to
cease to exist during a singularity. "How long does a singularity
last?" is a nonsense question because time is undefined during a
singularity.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com