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

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

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

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 -

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

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

"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*

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

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 -

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