FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3 [39 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:49 am    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

PieceOfShit Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:

Quote:

Let me elaborate it a bit.

Don't , just f*** off.
Back to top
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150602449.509444.303350@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

uri wrote:
Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or
a
force field that carries the force between them. Fields are more
fundamental than particles.

Depends on exactly what you mean by "particles". If you mean elementary
quantum objects, then they are fields anywise of a peculiar nature.

Quote:
Let me elaborate it a bit.
Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum
or aether did not have any physical properties.

Sure they could. Particles can simply bounce off one another. So I
don't know where you get this from. However, quantum theory shows us
that the "bouncing off of" picture is not correct. Photon exchange
between two oppositely charged particles can also cause attraction which
is counter-intuitive for the bouncing off of picture.

Quote:
With the physical
properties discussed in the original post the empty space or vacuum or
aether -call this entity by any name- will serve the same purpose for
which you want to call it a 'medium'. All fields are essentially the
'stress/strain' states of the vacuum!!

It is properly called the quantum "vacuum" now-a-days.

Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Back to top
GSS
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
Quote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1150453395.186066.162040@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

GSS wrote:
A region of physical space which is devoid of any material particle is
known as empty space or free space or vacuum.

I would note that 'free space' is a term of art with an implied
377 ohm radiation resistance, real and measurable.

'empty space' implies a complete absence of fundamental particles
so it can only exist on paper and would have only imaginary
properties.

If you have an edit in mind, that is a distinction you can exploit
to add a bit more clarity where so much confusion abounds.

Good paper!

No it isn't. It is bogus.
He claims an ether-relative Doppler shift masks out
the possitive result in the MM experiment.
Bogus. Any such such ether-relative Doppler would
have been detected long ago.

Kindly give your specific objections on this issue in the parallel
thread titled :
"A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx
but implies a contracting Universe."

Quote:
He also ignores the energy that would be radiated
in ether 'wake' waves.

Kindly elaborate this point.
I am sorry, I have not followed your objection/comment.

GSS
Back to top
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
Quote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1150453395.186066.162040@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

GSS wrote:
A region of physical space which is devoid of any material particle is
known as empty space or free space or vacuum.

I would note that 'free space' is a term of art with an implied
377 ohm radiation resistance, real and measurable.

'empty space' implies a complete absence of fundamental particles
so it can only exist on paper and would have only imaginary
properties.

If you have an edit in mind, that is a distinction you can exploit
to add a bit more clarity where so much confusion abounds.

Good paper!

No it isn't. It is bogus.
He claims an ether-relative Doppler shift masks out
the possitive result in the MM experiment.

Acrobat word search can't find the words
'mask' or 'positive' (spelled correctly) anywhere in
the paper. Are you reading the same piece ?

Sue...

Quote:
Bogus. Any such such ether-relative Doppler would
have been detected long ago.

He also ignores the energy that would be radiated
in ether 'wake' waves.

--
rb
Back to top
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:

Quote:

He also ignores the energy that would be radiated

in ether 'wake' waves. >>

Do you see something in the paper that denies
Cherenkov radiation ?

Sue...

Quote:

--
rb
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

In article <1150635613.326787.246380@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, GSS
<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1150453395.186066.162040@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

GSS wrote:
A region of physical space which is devoid of any material particle is
known as empty space or free space or vacuum.

I would note that 'free space' is a term of art with an implied
377 ohm radiation resistance, real and measurable.

'empty space' implies a complete absence of fundamental particles
so it can only exist on paper and would have only imaginary
properties.

If you have an edit in mind, that is a distinction you can exploit
to add a bit more clarity where so much confusion abounds.

Good paper!

No it isn't. It is bogus.
He claims an ether-relative Doppler shift masks out
the possitive result in the MM experiment.
Bogus. Any such such ether-relative Doppler would
have been detected long ago.

Kindly give your specific objections on this issue in the parallel
thread titled :
"A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx
but implies a contracting Universe."

Mr Hubble on line 5 to speak to you. Something about Cepheid variables
validating redshift-distances...

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

StupidCunt Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:

Quote:

No it isn't. It is bogus.
He claims an ether-relative Doppler shift masks out
the possitive result in the MM experiment.
Bogus. Any such such ether-relative Doppler would
have been detected long ago.

Kindly give your specific objections on this issue in the parallel
thread titled :
"A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx
but implies a contracting Universe."

He also ignores the energy that would be radiated
in ether 'wake' waves.

Kindly elaborate this point.
I am sorry, I have not followed your objection/comment.

GSS

Gurcharn Sandhu, every time you try to defend your s**t theories, you
get more embarassed. f*** the hell off this website. Get!
Back to top
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:59 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

dda1 wrote:
Quote:
StupidCunt Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:


No it isn't. It is bogus.
He claims an ether-relative Doppler shift masks out
the possitive result in the MM experiment.
Bogus. Any such such ether-relative Doppler would
have been detected long ago.

Kindly give your specific objections on this issue in the parallel
thread titled :
"A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx
but implies a contracting Universe."

He also ignores the energy that would be radiated
in ether 'wake' waves.

Kindly elaborate this point.
I am sorry, I have not followed your objection/comment.

GSS

Gurcharn Sandhu, every time you try to defend your s**t theories, you
get more embarassed. f*** the hell off this website. Get!

Leave him alone! I am studying amateur criminal defence
law and he is the only client I can find. Surprised)

Sue...
Back to top
Tom Roberts
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1399

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

GSS wrote:
Quote:
uri wrote:
Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or a
force field that carries the force between them. [...]
Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum
or aether did not have any physical properties. [...]

You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics.

In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in the
sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum
fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to
implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is omitted).

Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are
excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty
space".

Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live,
and they are properties of _themselves_, not space.


Apparently physics is more subtle, and more exciting, than you can
imagine. To understand this requires _study_.


Tom Roberts
Back to top
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
science forum beginner


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:20 am    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150635613.326787.246380@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1150453395.186066.162040@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

GSS wrote:
A region of physical space which is devoid of any material particle is
known as empty space or free space or vacuum.

I would note that 'free space' is a term of art with an implied
377 ohm radiation resistance, real and measurable.

'empty space' implies a complete absence of fundamental particles
so it can only exist on paper and would have only imaginary
properties.

If you have an edit in mind, that is a distinction you can exploit
to add a bit more clarity where so much confusion abounds.

Good paper!

No it isn't. It is bogus.
He claims an ether-relative Doppler shift masks out
the possitive result in the MM experiment.
Bogus. Any such such ether-relative Doppler would
have been detected long ago.

Kindly give your specific objections on this issue in the parallel
thread titled :
"A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx
but implies a contracting Universe."

In http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/space_aether_vacuum.pdf
you opine that the frequency of emission of light photons is influenced
by the motion of the source in the absolute/universal reference frame.
Kindly give an expression quantifying the frequency change
as a function of that "absolute" motion.

Quote:

He also ignores the energy that would be radiated
in ether 'wake' waves.

Kindly elaborate this point.
I am sorry, I have not followed your objection/comment.

GSS
Back to top
Ilja Schmelzer
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 377

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:54 am    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> schrieb
Quote:
Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are
excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty
space".

Why should I note this?

Maybe you don't like an interpretation of the 250 field components
of GR + SM in terms of a medium. But I have such an interpretation
and I like it.

See Message-ID: <e4ed3k$h23$1@sycamore.fernuni-hagen.de>

According to your claim, my interpretation should
be wrong. Explain why.

Quote:
Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live,
and they are properties of _themselves_, not space.

Sorry, but this is playing with words. The phrase "empty
space" (or spacetime) is widely used for an abstract
4-dimensional manifold _together_ with 10 field components g_mn.
Moreover, at least some of them should be _nonzero_.

Ilja
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message
news:anrlg.15004$Z67.9444@tornado.socal.rr.com...
Quote:

"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150635613.326787.246380@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1150453395.186066.162040@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

GSS wrote:
A region of physical space which is devoid of any material particle
is
known as empty space or free space or vacuum.

I would note that 'free space' is a term of art with an implied
377 ohm radiation resistance, real and measurable.

'empty space' implies a complete absence of fundamental particles
so it can only exist on paper and would have only imaginary
properties.

If you have an edit in mind, that is a distinction you can exploit
to add a bit more clarity where so much confusion abounds.

Good paper!

No it isn't. It is bogus.
He claims an ether-relative Doppler shift masks out
the possitive result in the MM experiment.
Bogus. Any such such ether-relative Doppler would
have been detected long ago.

Kindly give your specific objections on this issue in the parallel
thread titled :
"A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx
but implies a contracting Universe."

In
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/space_aether_vacuum.pdf
you opine that the frequency of emission of light photons is influenced
by the motion of the source in the absolute/universal reference frame.
Kindly give an expression quantifying the frequency change
as a function of that "absolute" motion.

The observed frequency shift of a source "B" is dependent on the relative
motion between the source and the observer "A". Relative motion between the
A and B is the vector difference of the vector component of A's absolute
motion and the vector component of B's absolute motion along the line
joining A and B. With this interpretation the SR formula for doppler shift
is the expression that you are seeking.
This interpretation for relative motion allowed me to formulate an Improved
Relativity Theory called IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike
SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. A
description of IRT is in the following link
(page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf

Ken Seto



Ken Seto
Quote:


He also ignores the energy that would be radiated
in ether 'wake' waves.

Kindly elaborate this point.
I am sorry, I have not followed your objection/comment.

GSS


Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JZdlg.68348$4L1.40545@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Quote:
GSS wrote:
uri wrote:
Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or a
force field that carries the force between them. [...]
Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum
or aether did not have any physical properties. [...]

You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics.

In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in the
sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum
fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to
implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is omitted).

Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are
excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty
space".

Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live,
and they are properties of _themselves_, not space.

Steven Weinberg defined a field as stress or strain in the medium called
space. So are you disageeing with him?

Ken Seto
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

kenseto wrote:
Quote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JZdlg.68348$4L1.40545@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
GSS wrote:
uri wrote:
Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or a
force field that carries the force between them. [...]
Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum
or aether did not have any physical properties. [...]

You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics.

In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in the
sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum
fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to
implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is omitted).

Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are
excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty
space".

Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live,
and they are properties of _themselves_, not space.

Steven Weinberg defined a field as stress or strain in the medium called
space. So are you disageeing with him?

Once again, Seto is taking his understanding of physics from snippets
of science popularizations.

PD
Back to top
zzbunker@netscape.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 284

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JZdlg.68348$4L1.40545@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
GSS wrote:
uri wrote:
Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or a
force field that carries the force between them. [...]
Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum
or aether did not have any physical properties. [...]

You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics.

In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in the
sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum
fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to
implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is omitted).

Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are
excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty
space".

Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live,
and they are properties of _themselves_, not space.

Steven Weinberg defined a field as stress or strain in the medium called
space. So are you disageeing with him?

Once again, Seto is taking his understanding of physics from snippets
of science popularizations.

Twice again, the Big Bang wanks are dorking it up in Goedeles,
as if the manifold morons understand the table of contents of logic.






> PD
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3 [39 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:03 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts SRT , GRT and Minkowski space . socratus Relativity 1 Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:49 pm
No new posts aether drift patents 3ality Relativity 0 Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:32 pm
No new posts equilateral triangles in space, and cyclohexane David Madore Math 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:05 pm
No new posts Homology of a certain space question James1118 Math 2 Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:22 pm
No new posts Point Defects in Emergent Vacuum ODLRO Geometrodynamics Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:52 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0366s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0046s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]