The Aether Reality

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You must be talking about this, from KeelyNet, based on the work of John Keely:

To go back to the topic, I have to say (more like repeat) this:

Aether/Ether MUST exist for the simple and unique reason that there can NOT be such a thing as an empty space. An 'un-filled' space (or filled with 'nothing') is not physically (nor metaphysically and logically for that matter) POSSIBLE.
The fact that we don't (even really try to since scientists are biased against the existence of an Aether) detect anything doesn't prove its abscence. (Abscence of proof isn't proof of abscence).

Besides, when using concepts like vacuum/void as part of theories, one should first PROVE their physical (or at least, their logical) reality (soundness).
Instead, it's always been assumed, nothing more.
After that, one must prove that 'nothing' (a vacuum) can be passed through...

The burden of proof is on those claiming this vacuum to exist.

As for the Aether, one has to simply use a demonstration by the absurd to logically and deductively prove its existence:

A vacuum is defined as "a (region of) space that is empty of matter".
A space "empty of matter" is a space where there is nothing (no thing).
If a vacuum exists then 'nothing' exists.
If nothing exists, the universe doesn't exist (either).

The universe exists.
Therefore a vacuum cannot exist.

If a vacuum doesn't exist, then ALL of space (the whole universe) must be filled with matter.
Therefore the Aether exists.

See? Easy.

Originally posted by poet1b
I don't know exactly what you do, but yoh have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about physics.

Wait, you posted a whole bunch of nonsense in previous pages. You confused purification technology which utilizes plasma, with evidence that plasma exists in metals. You said "acceleration is a result of momentum". You also mentioned "force of momentum", which is equally nonsensical. You get a sad, sad F in physics, and that's because I feel generous. Tossing around science-y sounding words may confuse some, but will expose you as lacking knowledge to the rest.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Exactly! The moment I saw that chart, I loved it. I showed it to a friend of mine who has some history with the more eclectic side of reality. He enjoyed it as much as I did.

Now I'm going to have to look at that other stuff and make some notes, compare a few details. It should provide some education. I don't care if you believe in god or not, if you believe in aether or not, if you like chocolate ice cream or not...if you can teach me something, if I walk away thinking, "Wow, that was cool," then exploring that particular topic was worthwhile to me.

I have to say this thread has been pretty worthwhile.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I don't understand what those 16 seconds have to do with the discussion at hand. Could you further explain the connection?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


My impression is that DePew has done actual experiments which have led him to believe that he's zeroed in on what the flower of life means magnetically. DePew has spent years working on trying to understand Leedskalnin's secret.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I'm exploring his website, but it's confusing. He doesn't explain his procedure, his analysis, his hypothesis or his reasoning fully. It's like reading a book with half the words cut out. Some of the pieces hold meaning for me, but without the rest, it doesn't make a logical trail.

reply to post by 1Agnostic1

Besides, when using concepts like vacuum/void as part of theories, one should first PROVE their physical (or at least, their logical) reality (soundness).
Instead, it's always been assumed, nothing more.
After that, one must prove that 'nothing' (a vacuum) can be passed through

Please explain how your concept applies to this simple experiment.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You might try sampling the audios I posted a link to to get more information about DePew. I haven't listened to them so I don't know. You could sample his other videos on his YouTube channel, as well, to get a glimpse.

Sometimes people aren't great at putting things in writing but they're talented in other ways.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
You might try sampling the audios I posted a link to to get more information about DePew. I haven't listened to them so I don't know.

I posted that on another thread: Link.

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
A vacuum is defined as "a (region of) space that is empty of matter".

Check.

A space "empty of matter" is a space where there is nothing (no thing).

Check.

If a vacuum exists then 'nothing' exists.

If a vacuum exists (it does) then it's possible to have a volume with no matter in it at all. The space still exists, it's just free of matter.

If nothing exists, the universe doesn't exist (either).

Here's where you really go into the alfalfa.

The universe exists.

Yep

Therefore a vacuum cannot exist.

Sure it can.

See? Easy.

Consider - what's between atoms in matter? Vacuum. Most of any matter is just empty space. Unless you want to count fields.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Please, first explain what you think happens here and what does that have to do with the existence of an Aether or the fact that a vacuum cannot exist.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1

ME: If a vacuum exists then 'nothing' exists.

YOU: If a vacuum exists (it does) then it's possible to have a volume with no matter in it at all. The space still exists, it's just free of matter.

See, that's where you get it all wrong. How can a "volume (of space) with no matter in it" exists?
To formulate in a way you can understand: "How can 'nothing' have limit? How can 'nothing'constitute a volume?
I'll help you: It CAN'T.
'Nothing', as defined as the abscence of ANY matter, is an absolute concept, you can't limit it to a region of space because it suits you. This is utterly stupid to think simply because you can say it, it makes it true.

So, there cannot be even ONE unit of 'nothing' since, if there were such a thing it will be borderless, shapeless, limitless. Do you understand?

It would be like giving a limit to the infinite.
[I know that, mathematically speaking there can be infinite 'bigger' than others like N (natural numbers) < R (real numbers), but, physically, it doesn't mean anything. And these infinites still have no limit. Thus, eben considering one 'bigger' than the other, when you think about it, doesn't make much sense either.]

My definition of Nothing would be: An 'infinite lack of anything'. It seems to make sense but, even this doesn't have any.
'Nothing' CANNOT exist.

ME: If nothing exists, the universe doesn't exist (either).

YOU: Here's where you really go into the alfalfa.

Is that your way of saying that you think I cleverly use rhetoric and make a sophistic argument/demonstration?

Anyway, I'm doing no such thing since I demonstrated in the previous paragraph (of this post) that a vacuum (a 'unit of nothingness') would be borderless, shapeless and limitless.
Therefore, if we would consider any quantity of 'nothing' to exist, then it would encompass all and, literally, nothing could exist at all.
As something (our universe is something, right?) exists, then a vacuum ('nothing') CANNOT.

Consider - what's between atoms in matter? Vacuum. Most of any matter is just empty space. Unless you want to count fields.

I'm aware that that's (one of) the theory (not the only one since QM tends to reject the very notion of particle altogether and prefers it the one of wave. See QM 3D ‘model’ of an atom).
But I've just demonstrated it to be false. Therefore, this 'vacuum' must be filled with something that we don’t (even try to) detect… yet.

Also, fields need 'something' to be propagated, a medium to allow particles (matter) to interact with each other and create them (forces/fields): This medium is the Aether.

Tremendous effort should be deployed to detect it and know (of) its nature.
We should make a list of potential candidates and try to find the or the several particles that can compose it by a rigorous process (of elimination).
A non-charged elusive yet potentially ‘omnipresent’ particle should be first on the list: that's why I propose the neutrino. But I suspect an even smaller particle to be the answer.

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
See, that's where you get it all wrong. How can a "volume (of space) with no matter in it" exists?

Why not? Seriously?

I'll help you: It CAN'T.

Thanks but no thanks.

reply to post by Bedlam


The big missing piece is what is the nature of a field, or a charge.

We can detect fields/charges, but there is no understanding of what makes a field/charge.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Seriously, you're asking me to "why not" when I explained it all in the post you're answering to???
Everything is there. I advise you to read it again. If you're genuinely asking of course.

Also, if you want to disprove my formal logical demonstration, good luck trying to prove that (a 'unit' or volume, as you want to put it) of 'nothing' can have a limit (shape, border, or form)...

Again, stating it in a sentence like: "A vacuum has a volume" is no demonstration nor proof of anything. It's what's called a baseless claim. Incidently, it'a also an utterly stupid (the claim, not necessarily you as you can have an agenda but still knowing it's bull) one.

reply to post by Bedlam


Good that you are able to see the basics, you fail to recognize that I am discussing one rotation within another, within another still, on and on.

A good example is gyroscopic precession. It takes a much deeper understanding that you have yet to recognize.

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

Please, first explain what you think happens here and what does that have to do with the existence of an Aether or the fact that a vacuum cannot exist.

A vacuum was created by removing the air. What matter replaced the air to prevent a vacuum? Although it's not a perfect vacuum there's not enough air left to produce sound waves.

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Seriously, you're asking me to "why not" when I explained it all in the post you're answering to???

What you explained in your post is your lack of comfort with things that are not palpable, or do not suite your preconceived notions. You don't like the idea of void, and that's that. Some people don't like blue cheese.

Also, if you want to disprove my formal logical demonstration

There was no logic and no demonstration.

Again, stating it in a sentence like: "A vacuum has a volume"

I can use a pump to evacuate a vessel, just like was presented here on these pages in the bell experiment. What's in that vessel now, now that air is gone? What' the volume of space that is "vacuo"? Well, the answer can be promptly found by measuring the volume that is now void.

I can use a pump to evacuate a vessel, just like was presented here on these pages in the bell experiment. What's in that vessel now, now that air is gone? What' the volume of space that is "vacuo"? Well, the answer can be promptly found by measuring the volume that is now void.

Hardly! Do you have any idea what it takes just to get an atmosphere resembling 80,000 feet?

Obviously not.