oldcoot <oldcoot7074@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 6, 6:35 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> Einstein's genius was in how he was able to get his
>> relativity theory into the bright limelight of controversy.
>> And he did this mainly by saying that there was no need
>> for an aether. So science in its infinite wisdom discarded
>> the aether.
>>
>Actually he'd gotten his relativity theory into the limelight while
>still fully endorsing the Lorentian 'ether'. Witness the famous Univ.
>of Leyden lecture of 1920. But somewhere in the mid-20s, he dropped
>this seemingly innocent and innocuous little gem : "Remember
>gentlemen, we have not proven that the aether does not exist, we have
>only proven we do not need it (for mathematical purposes)."
> Well lo and be damned, the mainstream grabbed that
>and ran with it, spinning it as heralding a new age of scientific
>enlightenment, with the Primacy of Math supplanting the old
>superstition. The 'aether/ether' was dead.
> He only meant space can be treated mathematically _as
>if_ it were a void, not that is IS a void. But the 'No Medium'
>bandwagon was under full steam and gathering momentum. And the rest,
>as they say, is history.
Time to reinterpret the words of people again after they are dead and
cannot respond.
>>
>> And while relativity theory might not require
>> an aether for it to work, quantum mechanics most
>> certainly _does_ require an aether, a spatial field, in
>> order to be better understood.
>>
>QM needs the spatial medium in order to be understood, period.
No, it doesn't. Quantum mechanics is wave mechanics.
>One
>case in point is nonlocality, such as demonstrated in the dual slit
>experiment and bilocation. The perceived "spookiness" of nonlocality
>will remain forever "spooky" if there is no medium. But the FACT of
>nonlocality *proves* the existance of the medium. It's one of the
>Cardinal Points of Evidence by which the medium _demonstrates itself_.
>It demonstrates a fundamental property of the sub-Planckian domain :
>that it is intrinsically holographic and nonlocal, embodying the
>'whole in every part' that Bohm and Pribram so eloquently described..
>and Wolter expanded upon with the medium's 'non-plurality'.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Learn something about wavefunctions before
pouring your own private interpretation into words that you don't
understand.
> Without the medium's holographic, nonlocal/non-plural
>nature, what accounts for the same-ness of the Periodic Table
>everywhere, throughout all time, even when out of lightspeed
>communication on opposite sides of the universe? How do the elements
>'know' to be what they are, everywhere, at all times, except for the
>universe-filling, holographic, nonlocal/non-plural Plenum of space?
More wrongs stirred into a word salad. Atomic theory and the periodic
table are results of the quantization of mass into protons, electrons,
and neutrons.
Perhaps you should learn what is meant by the word "quantum".
--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen
|
