What's your guys' take on Moving Dimensions Theory? Vs. String Theory / LQG?
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 6 Nov 2009 21:02 Space and time have to move differently from energy. Mitch Raemsch
From: cjcountess on 6 Nov 2009 21:27 I know what you mean Inertia. Some of the people on the web may not be intelegent, but hopefuly the weight of reason and evidence will tip the scales. I just think it is unessessary to be hostil to people tryincofconductenceg to progress human understanding when we need it so much. if we let logic and evidence and objective observation be our guide than we need not be so hostil toward each other. Conrad Countess Burt I agree that the aether will come back into the discution as it already has. Whether you call it a ground state energy field,, the electromagnetic/gravitation/unified field, Higgs, or whatever,n it is substantiated that space is not absolutly empty, and that it has a substance that gives EM waves impedence of c, conductance of c, and so on,. and as such is as a matrix that turns energy to matter It may very well turn out to be the axiomatic foundation of the new physics.
From: cjcountess on 6 Nov 2009 21:35 Sorry for the typos using a computer I am not used to and making many typos What I meant to say is I know what you mean Inertia. Some of the people on the web may not be intelegent, but hopefuly the weight of reason and evidence will tip the scales. I just think it is unessessary to be hostil to people trying to progress human understanding when we need it so much. if we let logic, evidence, and objective observation be our guide, than we need not be so hostil toward each other. Conrad Countess
From: Inertial on 6 Nov 2009 21:37 "cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3286c3ac-8e0e-475e-a037-e1120874be7f(a)t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > I know what you mean Inertia. Some of the people on the web may not be > intelegent, but hopefuly the weight of reason and evidence will tip > the scales. I just think it is unessessary to be hostil to people > tryincofconductenceg to progress human understanding when we need it > so much. if we let logic and evidence and objective observation be our > guide than we need not be so hostil toward each other. > > Conrad Countess > > Burt I agree that the aether will come back into the discution as it > already has. Whether you call it a ground state energy field,, the > electromagnetic/gravitation/unified field, Higgs, or whatever,n it is > substantiated that space is not absolutly empty, and that it has a > substance that gives EM waves impedence of c, conductance of c, and so > on,. and as such is as a matrix that turns energy to matter > > It may very well turn out to be the axiomatic foundation of the new > physics. It all depends on what you call 'aether'. Einstein labeled space-time itself as 'aether', when discussing whether or not there is an aether in relativity .. but that sort of aether is unlike the aether's of (say) a century ago. The problem is with the word .. that has labeled many varied things over the centuries.
From: cjcountess on 6 Nov 2009 22:09
Point well taken What I meant by aether is just as I stated, the substence that permeates space, giving it permeability of c, permeativty of c, and impedence of c, and the drag that creates mass, that is atributeted to the Higgs field. But you are correct in that it does need a more definite description. Conrad Countess |