Magnetism

[Eduffy80911]

Except that a void doesn't mean anything in 3d reality. My view of the aether is that it is composed of particles much smaller and/or faster than we are able to directly detect. A void can't interact with anything, Aether can. This interaction manifests itself in magnetism, gravity and charge.

[C1ay]

Except that a void doesn't mean anything in 3d reality.

Yes it does, it is simply space, free of energy and matter. FWIW, you have a lot of rigorous proof to present before you will get anyone to accept that which was discarded long ago.

[infamous]

I don't believe in any aether either but I do believe there is probably plenty of dark matter out there.

 

There is a common acceptance for the notion of dark energy, dark matter among scientific circles these days. It is a reasonable conclusion, considering what we know about the nature of our universe. Rational scientific thought justifies the presence of these entities, so we can safely assume that they do exist. The question remains however, how can we describe the physical nature of these characters if we can't isolate them for examination? Because this impediment has not been overcome as yet, all sorts of speculation about their physical properties is possible. If an aether exists, which I doubt to some degree, it has also not been observed by any of our presently known methods of discovery. Because both dark energy, dark matter and this socalled aether are as yet unobserveable, if an aether does exist, they may be one in the same. I believe that this possibility is not all that far fetched, improbably maybe. But because we know so little about both these possibilities, we must conclude that untill we understand dark energy, dark matter we cannot dismiss the remote possibility of an aether.

[Qfwfq]

It all depends on what one means by "ether". It is a term that has been used to indicate something hypothetical, to the purpose of models for attempting explanations of things. This is all part of the usual process of scientific method. Even in 20th century physics there are comparable things, from the Dirac sea to RQFT. The word ether doesn't necessarily mean the absolute frame of reference that the Maxwell equations, at first glance, suggested the existence of.

 

Neither is dark energy a proven idea at all, there has been a very good alternative proposal, based on an idea which is quite simple in the end and explainable in the context of inflationary models. See discussion:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2027

 

We propose an explanation for the present accelerated expansion of the universe that does not invoke dark energy or a modification of gravity and is firmly rooted in inflationary cosmology.

from http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503117

[maddog]

why would it take photon or anything else any longer to cross light years of nothing than one foot of nothing? If there were really nothing between you and your destination, you'd be there.

Distance is distance whether there is something present or not. To move a distance takes time

independent of the amount of distance or in presence of something or not.

 

maddog

[Eduffy80911]

distance is not a substance in and of itself. Can you have varying quantities of nothing? If so, what exactly is the difference between 6 feet of nothing and 1 foot of nothing? Can I compress the six foot length of nothing down to one or is nothing not compressable?

[maddog]

If the space between galaxies is occupied by mostly nothing, what is the difference between 1 cubic foot of nothing and 100 cubic light years of nothing? Would one cubic foot of nothing be more dense since it is the same amount of stuff (none) in a smaller volume?

In a word to both questions, Yes! The larger volume of nothing would have more to have vacuum

fluctuations. The more potential for something (even though briefly). ;)

 

maddog

[maddog]

If the space between galaxies is occupied by mostly nothing, what is the difference between 1 cubic foot of nothing and 100 cubic light years of nothing? Would one cubic foot of nothing be more dense since it is the same amount of stuff (none) in a smaller volume?

1. 100(# feet/light year)^3 is factor greater between 100 cubic light years and 1 cubic foot.

2. Density is a measurement of mass/volume. So if nothing weighs nothing, then density is nothing as well.

 

maddog

[Odin]

1. 100(# feet/light year)^3 is factor greater between 100 cubic light years and 1 cubic foot.

2. Density is a measurement of mass/volume. So if nothing weighs nothing, then density is nothing as well.

 

maddog

 

For one there is no such thing as a cubic light year as time is a perception of a conscouss being and not a dimension in itself but only existant upon the time passing irregardless of motion as time exists in lack of motion but not in the essence in lack of perception.

Furthermore I dont think that subatomic particles would have much influence on subatomic particles in theory that a magnet to cause the travelling of light years would be too powerful in repelling or attraction and nothing would occur except the spreading of subatomic particles through a vacuum much like a clandistine particle accelerator.

I would think that a reaction of antimatter reacting with subatomic particles would be more efficient in theorom as the antimatter could be contained under pressure and not much would need to be used to start a thrust from the intense burst of energy that would ensue. In retrospect to that thought is the issue of brakes and furthermore landing in a planet with an atmosphere.

Just remember Siberia in 1906[was it 1906] when that energy field blew a forest down from the centre out for a three mile radius. I would think alien beings may have been aquiring water from a lake or otherwise were investigating the planet and in thier blastoff...a burst of antimatter exploded in the atmosphere.

Of course if such a thing did occur there would be witnesses but what if they were silenced like Rasputin was, and Princess Alexandria of Baveria..there could be no other possible explination. A meteor would have left a crator and gamma rays are destroyed in the atmosphere by ionic fields...and just for the same reason that subatomic particles introduced in the atmosphere from space would be converted to a stable atomic element.