OK! i have read this whole thread, so who won? i am not trying to stir
it up again. i want to know what is the latest and/or best theory! (i do
think that theory is the term because i have not seen proof either way)
who is in charge of the last word? i previously understood that radio
was a magnetic force, a subatomic energy similar to gravity. and like
gravity, its not yet completely understood. (we dont need to understand
it to detect, measure or use it) magnetic energy has a spectrum from
gravity through radio into light and who knows how far beyond. the
particular qualities of this energy depends upon its frequency or
position relative to the spectrum. now one guy is arguing on the
existence of either, or a medium to propagate the waves. this seems true
at one end of the spectrum. the other guy argues on photons or little
energy packets that transverse distance like particles do. this also
seems true at the OTHER end of the spectrum. where are we on the
spectrum NOW? e l f radio is radio but it works very much like a
magnetic force. e h f is also radio. radio at gigahz frequencies and
above is starting to exhibit properties of light. so where the hell are
we talking about on the e m spectrum and how the hell does my antenna
work? SOMEBODY here HAS to be the one with the highest education! what
are YOUR qualifications and then what is YOUR opinion?

"Jim" wrote in message
...
OK! i have read this whole thread, so who won?

Among physicists 'no ether' won.

'ether' is an over extended analogy of
acoustic waves. The role of a medium in acoustic
waves is easily and relatively directly perceivable.
That gets added to one's "common sense" and then the
analogy is made to EM waves. But if one goes beyond
just making the analogy and actually tries to measure
this 'ether' it disappears, is contradictory, and/or is
superfluous.

i am not trying to stir
it up again.

But it may serve to do so.

i want to know what is the latest and/or best theory! (i do

The wiki page is pretty good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

"today the aether is considered to be a superseded scientific theory"

"... the mechanical qualities
of the aether had become more and more magical: it
had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that
was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to
support the high frequencies of light waves. It also
had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise
it would visibly affect the orbits of planets. Additionally
it appeared it had to be completely transparent,
non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at
a very small scale."

"By the early 20th Century, aether theory was in
trouble: A series of increasingly complex experiments
had been carried out in the late 1800s to try to detect
the motion of earth through the aether, and had failed
to do so. A range of proposed aether-dragging
theories could explain the null result but these were
more complex, and tended to use arbitrary-looking
coefficients and physical assumptions. Lorentz and
Fitzgerald offered a more elegant solution to how
the motion of an absolute aether could be undetectable
(length contraction), but if their equations were
correct, the new special theory of relativity (1905)
could generate the same mathematics without referring
to an aether at all. Aether fell to Occam's Razor."

"Today, the majority of physicists hold that there
is no need to imagine that a medium for light
propagation exists. They believe that neither
Einstein's general theory of relativity nor quantum
mechanics have need for it and that there is no
evidence for it. As such, a classical aether is an
unnecessary addition to physics that violates
the principle of Occam's razor."


think that theory is the term because i have not seen proof either way)
who is in charge of the last word? i previously understood that radio
was a magnetic

electromagnetic

force, a subatomic energy similar to gravity. and like
gravity, its not yet completely understood. (we dont need to understand
it to detect, measure or use it) magnetic energy has a spectrum from
gravity

Gravity is something else. Physicists have been
trying to link gravity to the other forces of nature
(electro-weak and strong nuclear) but have not
succeeded.

through radio into light and who knows how far beyond. the
particular qualities of this energy depends upon its frequency or
position relative to the spectrum. now one guy is arguing on the
existence of either, or a medium to propagate the waves. this seems true
at one end of the spectrum. the other guy argues on photons or little
energy packets that transverse distance like particles do.

Photons are photons regardless of which end of the
spectrum one is talking about.
At the low end they have very low energy and one
needs of lots of them in order to detect them.
They are also 'longer'.

this also
seems true at the OTHER end of the spectrum. where are we on the
spectrum NOW? e l f radio is radio but it works very much like a
magnetic force. e h f is also radio. radio at gigahz frequencies and
above is starting to exhibit properties of light. so where the hell are
we talking about on the e m spectrum and how the hell does my antenna
work? SOMEBODY here HAS to be the one with the highest education! what
are YOUR qualifications and then what is YOUR opinion?


--
rb

It is simply this,,, y'alls so called ''Time'' can NOT Exist.
cuhulin

OK,go look at your cute clocks and your cute wris****ches and on tv and
everywhere else y'all see ''Time'',,,, keep on believing in
y'allselfs.''Time'' does not exist,NO such thing.
www.devilfinder.com SCTISHLDY

(Crank up the bolume)
cuhulin

wrote in message
...
OK,go look at your cute clocks and your cute wris****ches and on tv and
everywhere else y'all see ''Time'',,,, keep on believing in
y'allselfs.''Time'' does not exist,NO such thing.

Of course it exists. It is the 4th dimension.

Example: when you make plans to meet someone - say for lunch - how many
coordinates do you give? You say "meet me at Harry's diner at main and
3rd, at 1:00 o'clock". You give 4 coordinates - 3 physical and one of
time.

Length, width, height, duration. There are (at least) 4 dimensions. Saying
WHERE something exists is meaningless without saying WHEN it exists. Did
Harry's diner exist at 3rd and Main 1 year ago? A million years ago?

Clocks are just the measuring stick. Just as physical dimensions exist
independently of feet, meters, and light-years, time exists independently of
what we use to measure it.

Clocks, inches, sundials, kilometers, decaying atoms, light-years, quartz
vibrations, the movement of Earth around the Sun etc. are all just
convenient measuring tools. They all give reference points, so we can say
things like "The restaurant is a mile north of here" or "I'll be at the
restaurant in an hour". The "mile" has no real existence, it's just an
agreed upon definition of a length of distance. Similarly, the "hour" has
no real existence, it's just an agreed upon definition of a length of time.

All of the measuring tools and terms we use to define the 4 dimensions are
purely arbitrary. What they are measuring, however, is very real. The
concepts of before, now and after are as real and universal as up, down,
left, right, forward and backward.

Mike

Mike wrote:
...
Mike


Our watches and clocks all measure the spinning of the earth, one spin =
24 hours. Now that is all very nice and everything, and it does get me
to appointments on time, but it is NOT "real."

Imagine just before the big bang, when all the matter in the universe
sprang forth from some sub-atomic particle sized piece into all "our
matter" now. And, imagine four old bearded men sitting there and
observing the big bang--what do the wrist watches on their arms measure?
There is no "earth spinning" to measure time by, indeed, there is no
matter.

If time exists, it exists on a "Universal Time Frame." And, no one has
"viewed" it yet--just like the ether.

When we finally do know the answers, we will see how it was stupid to
try to use "earth spinning" in our mathematics!

JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:
...
Mike


Our watches and clocks all measure the spinning of the earth, one spin =
24 hours. Now that is all very nice and everything, and it does get me to
appointments on time, but it is NOT "real."

Of course it is real. The clock gets you to appointments "on time" for the
same reason that directions and maps get you to appointments "on spot".

Imagine just before the big bang, when all the matter in the universe
sprang forth from some sub-atomic particle sized piece into all "our
matter" now. And, imagine four old bearded men sitting there and
observing the big bang--what do the wrist watches on their arms measure?

Who knows? It doesn't really matter *what* they measure! But they
clearly are measuring *something*, or they wouldn't be wearing them, right?
That they have no concept of Earthly hours is irrelevent. Just like the
lengths of their beards are measuring *something*, even though they don't
know about inches or meters or any of our Earthly measurements of length.

As I said earlier, all of the measuring tools and terms we use to define the
4 dimensions are
purely arbitrary. What they are measuring, however, is very real. The
concepts of before, now and after are as real and universal as up, down,
left, right, forward and backward.

Perhaps the Big Bang happens in cycles, every 24 "hours" on their "watches".
As Einstein showed, time is relative to the velocity of the observer.

Mike

And my little doggy,she has a sixth dimesion/sense too.She hears sounds
outside that are impossible for me to hear and she hits the front
door,barkin her arse off,running back and forth and jumpin on me.There
is NO such ''dimesion'' as ''Time''

Doggy,she doesn't know anything about ''Time''.Dogs are much,much
smarter than us humans can ever pretend to be.She sure does know when
she wants (''Time'') to hump my right leg though.
cuhulin

In article , "Mike"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
OK,go look at your cute clocks and your cute wris****ches and on tv and
everywhere else y'all see ''Time'',,,, keep on believing in
y'allselfs.''Time'' does not exist,NO such thing.

Of course it exists. It is the 4th dimension.

Example: when you make plans to meet someone - say for lunch - how many
coordinates do you give? You say "meet me at Harry's diner at main and
3rd, at 1:00 o'clock". You give 4 coordinates - 3 physical and one of
time.

Length, width, height, duration. There are (at least) 4 dimensions. Saying
WHERE something exists is meaningless without saying WHEN it exists. Did
Harry's diner exist at 3rd and Main 1 year ago? A million years ago?

Clocks are just the measuring stick. Just as physical dimensions exist
independently of feet, meters, and light-years, time exists independently of
what we use to measure it.

Clocks, inches, sundials, kilometers, decaying atoms, light-years, quartz
vibrations, the movement of Earth around the Sun etc. are all just
convenient measuring tools. They all give reference points, so we can say
things like "The restaurant is a mile north of here" or "I'll be at the
restaurant in an hour". The "mile" has no real existence, it's just an
agreed upon definition of a length of distance. Similarly, the "hour" has
no real existence, it's just an agreed upon definition of a length of time.

All of the measuring tools and terms we use to define the 4 dimensions are
purely arbitrary. What they are measuring, however, is very real. The
concepts of before, now and after are as real and universal as up, down,
left, right, forward and backward.

I don't think it a dimension like the ones you write about but there is
also spin. Spin has several qualities of its own.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
I don't think it a dimension like the ones you write about but there is
also spin. Spin has several qualities of its own.

Time is not a *physical* dimension like the others, but it is equally real
and measurable.

Does something that has 0 duration physically exist? Not in this universe.

Does something that has 0 length physically exist? Not in this universe.

Mike