On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:23:12 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith :

On 6/3/2011 3:18 PM, HVAC wrote:
On 6/3/2011 1:15 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:


space = (truly) empty

If that were true you might have a point, but it's not.

Google "space" and "virtual particles"; too many hits to
cite.

Space doesn't bend, the ether does

There is no ether.

... I mean, DUH! How can "nothing" bend?

Space isn't "nothing".


This sounds exactly like a discussion I had a while
back on the astronomy group. Why some people just love
ether is beyond me. If something (ether) needs not be
used in any way as a value in a computation, why use
it at all? ...If you kick the tires and look under the
hood of these ethertards, you'll find a god believer as
well.

Well, makes more sense than throwing in the rotation interval of the
earth into equations NOT dealing with the earth! And, it has nothing to
do with anything, except the rotation of the earth. The UTF will
probably be discovered right around the time we learn to understand the
ether ...

Besides, we will never know how radio waves (or any other waves, for
that matter) transverse and are propagated by the ether though space.

EM radiation doesn't require a propagation medium.

Most likely, will lead to a whole new area of physics, math and devices
which utilize the properties, once we understand them.

You argument sounds familiar, "You don't have to be a mechanic to drive
a car." The areas where that argument fail are also quite apparent ...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

On Jun 4, 11:40*am, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:23:12 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith :









On 6/3/2011 3:18 PM, HVAC wrote:
On 6/3/2011 1:15 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:

space = (truly) empty

If that were true you might have a point, but it's not.

Google "space" and "virtual particles"; too many hits to
cite.

Space doesn't bend, the ether does

There is no ether.

... I mean, DUH! How can "nothing" bend?

Space isn't "nothing".

This sounds exactly like a discussion I had a while
back on the astronomy group. Why some people just love
ether is beyond me. If something (ether) needs not be
used in any way as a value in a computation, why use
it at all? ...If you kick the tires and look under the
hood of these ethertards, you'll find a god believer as
well.

Well, makes more sense than throwing in the rotation interval of the
earth into equations NOT dealing with the earth! *And, it has nothing to
do with anything, except the rotation of the earth. *The UTF will
probably be discovered right around the time we learn to understand the
ether ...

Besides, we will never know how radio waves (or any other waves, for
that matter) transverse and are propagated by the ether though space.

EM radiation doesn't require a propagation medium.

Most likely, will lead to a whole new area of physics, math and devices
which utilize the properties, once we understand them.

You argument sounds familiar, "You don't have to be a mechanic to drive
a car." *The areas where that argument fail are also quite apparent ....

--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * - McNameless

What's the all-inclusive population or average photon density per
given km3 of ISM, or better to know that of the IGM? (I'm talking of
accounting for everything from at least EIR/ELF [1km] to those
extremely hard Gamma of .001 nm)

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 12:07:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Brad Guth
:

On Jun 4, 11:40*am, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:23:12 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith :

snip

...we will never know how radio waves (or any other waves, for
that matter) transverse and are propagated by the ether though space.

EM radiation doesn't require a propagation medium.

What's the all-inclusive population or average photon density per
given km3 of ISM, or better to know that of the IGM? (I'm talking of
accounting for everything from at least EIR/ELF [1km] to those
extremely hard Gamma of .001 nm)

Damfino, but Google is Your Friend.

And what's the relevance?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

On 6/4/2011 11:40 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

...
EM radiation doesn't require a propagation medium.
...

This argument can be dismissed immediately, light are EM radiation are
both governed by the same laws and physics, are are the same phenomenon,
of differing frequencies.

But, quote your great minds on that "fact" here, we shall have a gander
at what you find important? ...

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:54:18 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith :

On 6/4/2011 11:40 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

EM radiation doesn't require a propagation medium.

This argument can be dismissed immediately,

It's not an "argument"; it's an observation.

HTH.

light are EM radiation are
both governed by the same laws and physics, are are the same phenomenon,
of differing frequencies.

Yes. So? Do you imagine light can't propagate through a
vacuum?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless