ether

[dreece]

i don't believe in etheric energy, but i won't completely dismiss it without a through examination; so i'd like eveyone's view on this info i latelyreceived:<br /><br />"when physicists beganto study the quantum theory of fields, they discovered that a vacuum is not all what it had long appeared to be-just empyy space devoid of substance and activity....What might appear to be emty space is is a seething ferment of virtual particles. A vacuum is not inert and featureless, but alive with throbbing energy and vitality. A 'real' particle such as an electron must always be viewed against this background..."<br />"The distinction between matter and emty space fiinally had to be abandoned when it became evident that virtual particles can come into being spontaneously out of the void, and vanish again into the void," writes Fritjof Capra in 'The Tao of Physics' (Boston, Shambhala, 3rd ed 1991) "According to field theory, events of that kind happen all the time. The vacuum is far from empty. On the contrary, it contains an unlimited number of particles which come into being and vanish without end....The 'physicle vacuum'...contains the potentiality for all forms of the particle world. These forms, in turn, are not independent physical entities but merely transient manifestations of the undelying Void....The discovery of the dynamic quality of the vacuum is seen by many physicists as one of the most important findings of modern physics."<br />"According to our current understanding of physics, every region of space is awash with different kinds of fields composed of waves of varying lengths," writes Michael Talbot in 'The Holopraphic Universe' (New York: HarperCollins, 1991). "Each wave always has at least some energy. When physicists calculate the minimum amount of energy a wave can possess, they find that every cubic centemeter of empty space contains more energy than the total energy of all the matter in the universe.<br />Some physicists refuse to take this calculation seriou

 

[enigma10]

In short. The term Empty should never be used to define a place devoid of anything and/or everything. That place cannot exist. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[siarad]

Ah back to the genius Nikola Tesla with his free electric power & electric car.<br />Only just found <b>this</b>, not heard anything about it, real or scam?<br /><b>More</b> don't have a PC so using local library so little time to read more.

 

[lukman]

I am green in science, but i always think space is a form of energy, just like heat, sound, light and so on. Because outside universe there is no space, but somehow universe is expanding the space, using energy, dark energy perhaps -) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thebigcat]

Okay, I googled "Fritjof Capra ". I came up with "Crackpot". Specifically, the sort of crackpot who takes sound physics and draws unsound conclusions based upon that persons own prejudices. This puts him square in the same category as the ethnologists who used principles of genetics to promote the view of Germanic racial superiority and the people who intentially mis-construe the geologic record for "Scientific Creationism".<br /><br /><br /><b>dreece</b>: <i>i won't completely dismiss it without a through examination</i><br /><br />How thorough of an examination do you require? <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dreece]

simply your own Scientific reasoning would do; perhaps with any quotes from Scientific authorities that you think support or discredit the theory of etheric energy. i think everyone has a right to have their say, and that i should not dismiss something just because it sounds foolish to me. i.e. when people thought the world was flat, the idea of a round earth meant to them that we are standing upsided down, and that at the bottom of the earth rain falls up instead of down, etc! i don't believe in etheric energy prevading the universe, but my workmate does. many people do. i need logical documented facts if i am going to accept or refute the view.

 

[dreece]

not arguing just asking. define energy, please. how does space fit this definition that you think of it as a form of energy? what Sceintific documentation proves to you that space is energy? has it been proved? how? i find it interesting; it seems logical to me that there is an underlying energy that connects all things, in which everything exists; but how can we prove or disprove it?

 

[dreece]

why can't space be just empty? what has been found in every region of space that proves it is not truely an empty void? does this mean you agreewith the quotes i posted which my friend gave me?

 

[enigma10]

When you find a place devoid of everything, including your thoughts about it, let me know.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[paintwoik]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>When you find a place devoid of everything, including your thoughts about it, let me know<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>This place is everywhere apparent. Your failure here is also everywhere apparent.<br /><br />The universe itself is no more that a collection of markers within a void. The void being time of course.

 

[enigma10]

Please tell me you just didn't answer with a religious/spiritual concept.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"it seems logical to me that there is an underlying energy that connects all things, in which everything exists; but how can we prove or disprove it?"<br />---<br /><br />energy is not some stuff (it is not a thing) and so it can't connect any things and things can't exist in it (like fish 'things' existing in water 'thing')<br /><br />you probably have in mind so called ether 'stuff' which can be said to contain energy in some form<br /><br />"why can't space be just empty?"<br />---<br /><br />empty space means it is empty of things like planets, stars, atoms... but it can never be empty of ether because ether is not 'some thing' that could be removed like things can, in fact without ether there coudl be no space since space is an attribute of ether and wouldn't even exist without it<br /><br />"what has been found in every region of space that proves it is not truely an empty void?"<br />----<br /><br />void is a term which denotes a hypothetical region in which not even ether would exist and there can be no such region, it is logically impermissible and physically impossible to exist<br /><br />nothing could exist in a void and nothing could move into a void and it could have no properties whatsoever, void is an abstract term, a negation of existence and it can't exist physically although we can conceive of it as opposite of existence (void is the same as non-existence)<br /><br />so void is not something that would need some positive proof of its non-existence, such proof would in fact be impossible to obtain since you can't go about proving that something doesn't exist<br />BTW the preceeding explanation is not any proof of the non-existence of void but only explanation why it can't exist or more precisely why one doesn't need to set out about its disproval<br /><br />in short, onus of proof lies with those who claim that void exists, it is them that should be proving its 'existence', supplying the evidence of it, it is the typical false approach when void is taken as given and opp <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[robnissen]

<font color="yellow">energy is not some stuff (it is not a thing) </font><br /><br />While energy is not necessarily "stuff," it is easy enough to turn energy into stuff. In case you missed it, this rather obscure equation shows you how: M= e/c squared. M=stuff <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> The universe is not a very simple place. J/k about the equation being obscure.

 

[aetherius]

I would argue that there can be no 'void' today unless there was a 'void' within the immeasurably dense singularity of the big bang.

 

[trumptor]

"onus of proof lies with those who claim that void exists, it is them that should be proving its 'existence', supplying the evidence of it, it is the typical false approach when void is taken as given and opponents are asked to supply the proofs that it doesn't exist - as when you said "what has been found in every region of space that proves it is not truely an empty void?""<br /><br />I see we have plenty of ether fans here I disagree that the onus of proof rests on those saying space is a void. And I'm not implying the philosophical intepretation that a void cannot exist because a void means "devoid of everything including existence". I mean the more popular interpretation of it just meaning the vacuum, devoid of matter and energy. <br /><br />I'm not arguing one way or the other, but I belive the proof lies on those saying that there is something out there where we see nothing. If there is a mysterious something called ether, then what if I say there is another mysterious something called "blabla" that permiates the space around the Adromeda galaxy. Should you prove me wrong since the onus of proof lies on those claiming it rests in a void? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>

 

[siarad]

I recall an exam question way back in the middle 1950's where we were required to calculate the impedance of free space: 377 Ohms I think, the value of paint used on aircraft to make them less visible to RADAR. <br />Being nothing would make this incalculable & the speed of light infinite so aether is certainly something but whether it contains energy I don't know.<br />That famous M&M experiment wrongly proved it didn't exist by failing to do a 'Mach meter' measurement with light. All it proved is we don't know how to do this, having no rest base to measure against as with sound, whose speed likewise doesn't vary with the observer's speed.<br />

 

[vandivx]

I wouldn't know about void being popular designation of vacuum, it is not a popular term to begin with even in science and it is most stronger one we have I think for specifying 'utter nothing' meaning even the absence of hypothetical ether<br /><br />I mean why use the term void if vacuum is stock in trade term in use for centuries<br /><br />however if you equate void with vacuum or empty space then perhaps I don't have much more to say given you use words in such non-standard way (for want of better term) because then communication breaks down and is useless if we don't agree on the meaning of words<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I belive the proof lies on those saying that there is something out there where we see nothing. If there is a mysterious something called ether, then what if I say there is another mysterious something called "blabla" that permiates the space around the Adromeda galaxy. Should you prove me wrong since the onus of proof lies on those claiming it rests in a void?</font><br /><br />you might be right about the 'onus of proof' because the way I invoke it is not quite standard since we talk here about a 'negative', point is though that void is still existential impossibility, a non-thinkable, non-imaginable to exist, in short logical short ciruit if one tries to imagine it as actually being (on the other hand it is easy to imagine vacuum - the absence of all things, things detectable directly or indirectly)<br /><br />also ether (basically some stuff that is everywhere and forming background to existence) is easy to dismiss, the situation is analogous to one if fish could talk and one said to another: "water, what water, I don't see what you talk about, I can't touch it, smell it or kick it and I don't believe there is any such stuff you talk about" but our situation is much more devious than that of 'fish and water' analogy which wouldn't stand if they had any brains whatever <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />on second thought I <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lukman]

IMO, if space is nothing, then all those warping space is crap, black hole will not suck the light, because black hole cannot bend the space, because space is nothing, empty. Star trek warp drive will be pure fiction and only dream, those all if space is nothing. nothing scientifically proven. -) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

you're quite right<br /><br />also you bring out one problem physics has today and that is new pple coming to learn it are puzzled by inconsistencies like bending space which at the same time is supposed to be nothing and you meet with both views in physics (and I am talking about mainstream and what you learn in schools, not some oddballs' views)<br /><br />if you start asking eventually you get told that physical picture of physics is only that, a picture and that what matters is mathematics of physics and that is right never mind the physical physics (like they do in QM)<br /><br />it is a trully sorry state that physics is in IMO<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"I'd love to have specific quotes with names and page number if i can get it, that's if you care to support your statements in this way."<br />---<br /><br />you won't find many sources regarding ether, at least not extended (developped) discussion and what is there is tainted with mysticism, I mean look at the sources you gave, I have fairly good collection of popular physics and astronomy exposition but these books are not among them, they are way too tainted with mysticism for my taste to look for truth in them<br /><br />also when it comes to ether (or the 'vacuum energy' as the ether is being sidestepped these days), you won't find many sources because the mainstream of physics regards the idea of ether as benighted, somewhat as capitalism's advocates today are viewed as harking back to eighteenth century<br /><br />I can see anybody being interested in ether only if one has ambition to do ground breaking work in physics, if you are just interested and want to know the 'truth' you might as well go with the official version of physics as it is tought in schools because for one the sources are few and those that are there do not fall under the 'combed science' category that would be ready for school benches or for interested amateurs, forefront of science is always uncombed science meaning it is confusing to onlookers or to those wanting to know some definite answers, on the very edge of science there are typically no real authorities, no firm ground to stand on and everybody is on his own and you get easily as many scientists harking for one view as for its opposite (I said no real authorities because even authorities can be dead wrong and most often they are as had been historically proven time and time again)<br /><br />that's why I believe that ether subject is worth getting into only if you intend to try your hand at it, that is if you are working on your own theory<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[trumptor]

"however if you equate void with vacuum or empty space then perhaps I don't have much more to say given you use words in such non-standard way (for want of better term) because then communication breaks down and is useless if we don't agree on the meaning of words"<br /><br />Are you joking? First of all, I said void becuase its what has been used here. What I meant was a vacuum. Maybe you will be able to understand what I am getting at, otherwise my straining to express more than mere grunts will have gone to waste. Maybe you should try and think a little below your obviously ridiculous IQ level and see if you can decifer what I was attempting to say without tossing out unprovoked insults.<br /><br />I thought this was a forum where people asked questions and threw out ideas. I didn't realize that it was only ok if the ideas were in step with yours. I bet you would have been screaming for Galileo's banishment if you were in a different century than where you sit.<br /><br />"BTW I noted your smug cheshire cat like smile and even imagined you licked your chops in selfsatisfying fashion when you said "I see we have plenty of ether fans here" <br />if you lived long enough and didn't live altogether idly you would know that such lines are very typical for the (eventually) loosing side in any argument, in fact whenever one sees something like that one is almost sure that the truth is on the other side of the argument, here on the side of ether stuff banishing the void "<br /><br />I'd say you have a very good imagination. The smile was just a plain and simple innocent end to the sentence. Smug? Why? Licking my chops? Is proving ether as real your life goal? Why else would you get in such a mood?<br /><br />If I can rephrase my original post, intentionally leaving out any smiles or other obviously sinister gestures and trying to do so without allowing myself to revert back to grunting and other mediums that tend to break down communication, I will.<br /><br />My point is that as l <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

[sigh] I didn't know I come over so strongly, I guess I couldn't be a teacher as kids would run back to their homes crying after every lecture and probably wouldn't come back [/sigh]<br /><br />void is really metaphysical term and is typically used in (natural) philosophy, today's physics only uses the term vacuum because evacuated particles from a region of space are plenty sufficient for it, primitive as it is<br /><br />if there was historically no idea of ether (aether in old spelling) there would be no need for the term void because vacuum would do quite nicely<br /><br />ether also was and still is largely philosophical term, it made its way into physics in nineteenth century and by the time of Einstein was mostly gone from it again, I believe you won't find the two terms - ether and void - in mainstream physics today, they keep showing up only on forums and 'third party' obscure physics sites on internet <br /><br />if we didn't conceive of ether we wouldn't need the term void which denotes most particularly the absence of ether (really the absence of anything you can conceive of - that is it denotes utter metaphysical nothing, for the absence of particles we have the term vacuum, at least that's my understanding of it and no modern interpretations of the terminology won't make a difference as far as I am concerned, modern science is so haywire in many ways that only modern scientists <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> would take it for granted at its face<br /><br />it may surprise you but I didn't mean smily icon but the sentence as smug expression, keep using smilies they enliven the posts, I had no idea it would prod you under ribs as it did, it was an attempt at humour and it wasn't a bad one I should think if I say so myself <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />I didn't find that sentence from you insulting, honest, I just saw it as a handy opening for the humorous comment I made<br /><br />and no, proving the existence of ether is not my life goal, other d <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dreece]

point taken!

 

[dreece]

maybe they should bring proof of their void. nice point. you said that energy is not some 'thing;' so how do you define energy? just curious.

 

[dreece]

excellent reasoning. do you have any documented scientific evidence that disproves the existence of ether? i'm not exactly an ether fan, but what about the quotes from the physicists in my original posts? what do you say to those quotes and the discovery they claim to make?