[ExI] [atlantis_II] Ether vs. Relativity
dan_ust at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 24 20:44:23 UTC 2011
> Not saying I agree with, but that's interesting and I think akin to Descartes view of the matter. (Cartesian materialism, anyone?)
> I can see how basing fields that way (not a new idea, of course) can be viewed as the solution to many problems.
> I also see this as an update of Greek atomism. Do you agree?
> On Sep 23, 2011, at 9:39 PM, Dennis May <dennislmay at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I wrote:
>> > I support an aether based relativity. The Lorentz-Poincaré
>> > idea of what would compose an aether is not the kind of
>> > aether I would support but the basics are there for
>> > expanding and changing the theory for a different kind
>> > of aether theory. I have discussed this type of aether
>> > elsewhere - primarily on physics_frontier on YahooGroups.
>> > This aether is composed of vast numbers of particles much
>> > much smaller than the smallest known subatomic particles.
>> > They travel much much faster than the speed of light. There
>> > is also a sea of very low energy photons in this background.
>> Dan Ust wrote:
>> > Is you view that this must be particle-based to banish fields
>> > from physics? Or why do you believe there are really tiny
>> > particles? Is this akin to Ancient Greek atomism? (Not trying
>> > to be sarcastic, but wondering if this is all based on some of
>> > local contact being the fundamental way things interact in
>> > your view.)
>> It is my view that all fields are composed of particles and some
>> kind of local contact. Every attempt to get away from particle
>> based fields has eventually run into dead ends, the requirement
>> for endless epicycles, or stagnation where different portions of
>> physics cannot be reconciled.
>> Dennis May__,_._,___
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat