<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "><div>Not saying I agree with, but that's interesting and I think akin to Descartes view of the matter. (Cartesian materialism, anyone?) </div><div><br></div><div>I can see how basing fields that way (not a new idea, of course) can be viewed as the solution to many problems. </div><div><br></div><div>I also see this as an update of Greek atomism. Do you agree?<br><br>Regards,<div><br></div><div>Dan</div></div><div><br>On Sep 23, 2011, at 9:39 PM, Dennis May <<a href="mailto:dennislmay@yahoo.com">dennislmay@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 4px; "><div><div id="ygrp-mlmsg" style="font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; position: relative; "><div id="ygrp-msg" style="line-height: 1.22em; z-index: 1; "><div id="ygrp-text" style="line-height: 1.22em; font-family: Georgia; "><p style="line-height: 1.22em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; ">I wrote:<br style="line-height: 1.22em; "> <br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">> I support an aether based relativity. The Lorentz-Poincaré<br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">> idea of what would compose an aether is not the kind of<br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">> aether I would support but the basics are there for<br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">> expanding and changing the theory for a different kind<br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">> of aether theory. I have discussed this type of aether<br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">> elsewhere - primarily on physics_frontier on YahooGroups.<br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">> This aether is composed of vast numbers of particles much<br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">> much smaller than the smallest known subatomic particles. <br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">> They travel much much faster than the speed of light. There<br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">> is also a sea of very low energy photons in this background. <br style="line-height: 1.22em; "> <br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">Dan Ust wrote:<br style="line-height: 1.22em; "><br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">> Is you view that this must be particle-based to banish fields <br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">> from physics? Or why do you believe there are really tiny <br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">> particles? Is this akin to Ancient Greek atomism? (Not trying <br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">> to be sarcastic, but wondering if this is all based on some of <br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">> local contact being the fundamental way things interact in <br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">> your view.)<br style="line-height: 1.22em; "> <br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">It is my view that all fields are composed of particles and some<br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">kind of local contact. Every attempt to get away from particle <br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">based fields has eventually run into dead ends, the requirement<br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">for endless epicycles, or stagnation where different portions of<br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">physics cannot be reconciled.<br style="line-height: 1.22em; "> <br style="line-height: 1.22em; ">Dennis May<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 1.22em; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: 17px; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">__,_._,___</span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></span></blockquote></body></html>