Positive and Negative

[GaryN]

@Sparky

ireallydonno...

Does anyone? I kind of like the thinking of Caroline H Thompson, deceased unfortunately, and her Phi waves.
Phi-waves and Forces
http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson ... -waves.htm
The Nature of Light
http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson ... /light.htm

[sjw40364]

This is exactly defined as particles separated by empty space. I understand the appeal of visualising a continuous aethereal fluid, but it is a vital necessity of a fluid of any description that it be particles separated by empty space. An atomic fluid is 99.9999....% empty space, an aethereal fluid will be no different.

The full universe is totally and utterly solid in the ultimate and absolute meaning of that concept, with no chance or hint of motion at any level. You can build model upon model with layer upon layer of aethereal field of finer and finer grained particles, but it will be to no avail. To retain a viable property of motion a vast majority of empty space in required..

I so wholeheartedly agree, and yet the concept is almost unbearable to agree with as well. For such a notion requires action at a distance, as there can be no physical contact. Even as I sit in this chair there is emptiness between the atoms in my body and the atoms of the chair, to all our observations they actually never touch. So if indeed they never touch, then action at a distance is the only alternative.

[Michael V]

Plasmatic,

But separation of what from what is at issue.

Well, no, there is no issue, since the answer is broadly self-defined. Particles of substance are separated from each other by space that is completely devoid of substance.

Remind me how one determines perceptually that fluids have space in them please.

Perhaps you have a valid point, although completely irrelevant in the context of this argument. Perception is not a factor, only objective logic holds sway. Suggestions of aethereal fluid are patently manifestations of wishful thinking. The next step is then to lure oneself further into delusion by visualising waves are vortices and such. Talking water as a simplistic example it should be easily seen that the water which is electrons and protons is held together entirely by the action of aethereally mediated forces whose pattern of action can only be explained by a randomly moving field of particles. Any attempt to introduce waves into the aethereal field immediately necessitates a multiplex of aethereal layers to facilitate the wave motion of the layer above. All the while requiring and defining motion as a prerequisite and in order to have motion there must be freedom of movement which can only be provided by empty space.

Why can't deformable balls compress to touch at all surfaces to others of same? Or at least tetrahedrons.

Sorry mate, you're gonna have to spell this out with short simple words. What is the point or purpose of this?

Michael

[Michael V]

sjw,

I so wholeheartedly agree, and yet the concept is almost unbearable to agree with as well. For such a notion requires action at a distance, as there can be no physical contact. Even as I sit in this chair there is emptiness between the atoms in my body and the atoms of the chair, to all our observations they actually never touch. So if indeed they never touch, then action at a distance is the only alternative.

Dude, the argument is not that atoms are surrounded by completely empty space, it is that beneath the bottom layer of any proposed aethereal field system sits completely empty space. Empty space is at the bottom of the motional food chain, without which the motion of substance it not physically, logically or even definitionally possible.

Matter is the principle definition of our existence. Aethereal field action takes care of the action-at-a-distance. Empty space defines substance as that which is not nothing and also defines the separation of substance that defines and allows motion.

Michael

[Michael V]

Gary N,

Suppose there exists just one substance, “aether”, a very special kind of fluid that supports waves of change of state of its one basic property, “phi”.

Gary,
No progress here, it's dead in the water in the first sentence. To have waves, you need a waving particle substance medium, AND, an underlying force mediating particle substance: matter and aether. It is logically indefensible and intellectually pointless to invoke "a very special kind of fluid". Yes, pixie dust and fairy magic would make the task of theoretical model construction much easier, but to what end? - simply to fool one's self?. You can borrow as much as you like, but you are only rich until it comes times to pay up, and then you are back where you started. OK, I will concede that matter and aether and lower-level aether is theoretically workable, but you will have to pay a heavy price to Occam's Razor. If your philosophy and theory are happy to pay that price, then you may have as many aethereal field layers as you like to support one's theoretical conveniences. Perhaps you could even stoop so low as to have made-to-measure, appear-on-demand particles to do specific operational tasks.

However, if gravity, charge and light can be readily explained by a simple and elegant method involving the motion and interaction of only three particle types (together with transient hybrids), why increase complexity beyond the bounds of credulity. If light can be accounted for by the motion of particles, why invoke whimsical waving methods.

Michael

[Plasmatic]

Michael Ill respond to earlier post later.

If light can be accounted for by the motion of particles, why invoke whimsical waving methods.

Why do you assume particles cant move in aggregate in a waving motion?

[sjw40364]

sjw,

I so wholeheartedly agree, and yet the concept is almost unbearable to agree with as well. For such a notion requires action at a distance, as there can be no physical contact. Even as I sit in this chair there is emptiness between the atoms in my body and the atoms of the chair, to all our observations they actually never touch. So if indeed they never touch, then action at a distance is the only alternative.

Dude, the argument is not that atoms are surrounded by completely empty space, it is that beneath the bottom layer of any proposed aethereal field system sits completely empty space. Empty space is at the bottom of the motional food chain, without which the motion of substance it not physically, logically or even definitionally possible.

Matter is the principle definition of our existence. Aethereal field action takes care of the action-at-a-distance. Empty space defines substance as that which is not nothing and also defines the separation of substance that defines and allows motion.

Michael

And an aetheral field is composed of what? Smaller particles that must indeed be surrounded by empty space. Your own statements show that no matter how small you choose to make the particle, it is surrounded by empty space. Unless you are suggesting that this aetheral field is composed of particles in constant contact? Yet you argue against a sea of aether and that seas are mostly empty space anyways, so that cant be. As for space consisting of layers, dimensions, branes, etc, etc, so much rubbish and fantasy. A cop-out for having to find a real answer to reality. Everything that exists is a particle, and unless two particles actually touch, there is nothing left but action at a distance.

[Michael V]

sjw,

And an aethereal field is composed of what? Smaller particles that must indeed be surrounded by empty space. Your own statements show that no matter how small you choose to make the particle, it is surrounded by empty space.

You have effectively summarised exactly what I have been saying. With regard to the above, we are in complete agreement.

Unless you are suggesting that this aethereal field is composed of particles in constant contact?

No, definitely NOT.

As for space consisting of layers, dimensions, branes, etc, etc, so much rubbish and fantasy.

Again, this is not a suggestion that I am making, nor do I feel comfortable with. By "layers", I am referring to a model by which matter in controlled/mediated by an aethereal field, then the aethereal field is further mediated by a field of even smaller particles, which the the aethereal field with act as another level or layer of aether. A multi-level system of aethereal field is the only way to achieve a waving aether. I agree with you that such a model is a cop-out and as I have said in other posts, I would suggest that Occam would also agree with us.

Everything that exists is a particle, and unless two particles actually touch, there is nothing left but action at a distance.

Again, we are in agreement. There possibility exists that electron/electron, proton/electron and proton/proton collisions may occur in "extreme" conditions. But certainly for the vast majority of the time matter interactions are mediated an aethereal field of some description. Action-at-a-distance is an absurd impossibility.

Michael

[Michael V]

Plasmatic,

Why do you assume particles cant move in aggregate in a waving motion?

I make no such assumption. I know with absolute and complete certainty that such a system cannot exist.

The only way to achieve motion in a particulate medium is to control the motion of those particles with opposing forces: up and down, back and forth, side to side. There is no way to construct a field of particles whose motions produce waves or patterns of motion only by their own collisions. And there is no way to have motion other than by the freedom of movement afforded by empty unoccupied space.

Michael

[Plasmatic]

I make no such assumption. I know with absolute and complete certainty that such a system cannot exist.

Ok I'll rephrase:

What makes you certain. On what justificational foundation are you operating in. Logic without a basis of concepts derived from perception is meaningless/arbitrary. Even if you disagree,it is not obvious to me what your reason for being certain is logically.

There is no way to construct a field of particles whose motions produce waves or patterns of motion only by their own collisions. And there is no way to have motion other than by the freedom of movement afforded by empty unoccupied space.

This,like your assertion that fluids have space, just is not self evident to me. It seems you are basing this on definitions alone apart from any context the concept/definition arises from in perception. ALL valid concepts are tied hierarchally to the perceptual level. A person born deaf may sign "sound" but it is an empty word for them not a concept.

What observations support the idea that there is emty space in fluids? If you are not aware of any then I suppose we will not be able to continue on this as I reject all arbitrary claims and evidence is always based on perception for me.

[sjw40364]

I make no such assumption. I know with absolute and complete certainty that such a system cannot exist.

Ok I'll rephrase:

What makes you certain. On what justificational foundation are you operating in. Logic without a basis of concepts derived from perception is meaningless/arbitrary. Even if you disagree,it is not obvious to me what your reason for being certain is logically.

There is no way to construct a field of particles whose motions produce waves or patterns of motion only by their own collisions. And there is no way to have motion other than by the freedom of movement afforded by empty unoccupied space.

This,like your assertion that fluids have space, just is not self evident to me. It seems you are basing this on definitions alone apart from any context the concept/definition arises from in perception. ALL valid concepts are tied hierarchally to the perceptual level. A person born deaf may sign "sound" but it is an empty word for them not a concept.

What observations support the idea that there is emty space in fluids? If you are not aware of any then I suppose we will not be able to continue on this as I reject all arbitrary claims and evidence is always based on perception for me.

I believe what michael is trying to say is that water does not cause waves, the waves are caused by external sources. So an aetheral field would not occilate by itself, but would require an external source to make it wave.

There are particles that occilate, but the real question is do they occilate by themselves, or is it from interaction with an underlying aetheral field. Picture a small ball traveling through a pool of larger balls. It may nudge a few slightly left or right or up or down, but its main travel path will be what appears to be an occilation pattern as it is also pushed slightly one way then another, even if its overall path is a straight line.

I personally have never seen a glass of water begin making waves until an external force was applied.

[Michael V]

sjw,

....but the real question is do they oscillate by themselves,....

There is no question at all. An object in uniform motion will not change that uniform motion unless an external force is applied.

I personally have never seen a glass of water begin making waves until an external force was applied.

Quite so. But a perfectly still glass of water is subject to gravity. Inside the neutrons, the electron and proton are constantly battling, the neutrons and protons are in constant conflict and cannot sustain their nucleus equilibrium without the influence of electrons. Electrons are bound to the atom by the influence of the nucleus. Gravity and charge are constantly providing a complex mixture of opposing forces just to maintain the integrity of the water (and the glass). Waves are a more apparent manifestation of the motion of molecules. Not only is the structural integrity of those molecules reliant upon aethereal forces, but so are the waves that at first glance may appear to be a function solely of the water molecules.

Michael

[sjw40364]

Correction: I meant to say picture a larger ball moving through a pool of smaller balls. It will be nudged slightly left or right, up or down, etc even though it's overall path may be straight.

[sjw40364]

sjw,

....but the real question is do they oscillate by themselves,....

There is no question at all. An object in uniform motion will not change that uniform motion unless an external force is applied.

Perhaps you are aware of others, but the most common particles that are said to oscillate are such as cesium and other radioactive particles. Perhaps the emitting of the radiation pushes the particle first one way then the other as it emits in pulses as it spins. After all, for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. So perhaps that force can also come internally as well, not just externally.

[Michael V]

sjw,

Perhaps you are aware of others, but the most common particles that are said to oscillate are such as cesium and other radioactive particles. Perhaps the emitting of the radiation pushes the particle first one way then the other as it emits in pulses as it spins. After all, for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. So perhaps that force can also come internally as well, not just externally.

I like your thinking, but there are several issues to consider:
- an atom is not a particle, it is a collection of particles held together by a complex interplay of forces
- can the electrons and protons generate said forces on an ongoing basis constantly for perhaps billions of years without an outside source
- consider the mass of cesium atom and its velocity at a high frequency of oscillation. How much momentum must it emit to produce a sufficient reactionary force to decelerate it and then accelerate in the opposite direction. And then to repeat that process backwards and forwards a billion odd times a second using just on-board "propellant".
- not to give the game away too soon, but in all cases an external source is indicated

Incidentally, I have previously considered this specific subject on many previous occasions. There is nothing in this argument so far that I have not considered at length.

Michael