Black Holes Feed On Quantum Foam, Says Cosmologist

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by cav755, Apr 2, 2014.

  1. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    OK, I'll take all that as your offering of the nature of the medium of space, aether if you like, and the description of the nature of particles, and gravity. It gives me a general impression of what you are viewing as the mechanics of gravity.

    I think we share the idea that GR does not give us the mechanics of gravity, and it looks like we have taken different paths in hypothesizing about what those mechanics might be. To me the answer is in the quantum realm where you leave off. I have to hypothesize that all observable particles do have some internal wave composition and that would include quarks. You seem to stop at that point in the mechanics of gravity, and thus you avoid any discussion of quantum gravity. That explains to me why our discussion of the various interpretations of QM ended your rejection of even the possibility that the current understanding of QM is incomplete, which I think it is.

    Thanks again for being persistent in promoting the position that there is a need for some mechanical explanation of gravity, though.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    "



    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation

    This mechanical explanation for gravity never gained widespread acceptance, although it continued to be studied occasionally by physicists until the beginning of the 20th century, by which time it was generally considered to be conclusively discredited.
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    "What would you call "curvature of space/time"?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cav755 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    439
    Robert Laughlin is saying you can't mention the ether in mainstream physics because it is taboo even though there is experimental evidence of it found every day.

    That is the definition of mainstream physics being in denial.
     
  8. cav755 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    439
    QM is statistical in nature and incomplete. It is incomplete because it is in denial of understanding in a double slit experiment it is the aether which waves.

    'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
    http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.htmll

    "Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

    if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
     
  9. cav755 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    439
    The state of displacement of the aether.
     
  10. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    There is none, and never has been, any experimental evidence of ether.

    This is simply mpc755 repeating the same thing he claims in every post, without ever providing any evidence. He feels that if he simply repeats the same cut and paste often enough, it will come true.
     
  11. cav755 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    439
    "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

    There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    We have no evidence of any aether as you keep putting.
    And while you keep saying an aether does exist, you are convincing no one.....you are posting on a science forum.....
    The mainstream view will keep aligning to what the evidence points to.
    And finally of course, if you had any evidence at all to support the nonsense you keep putting, you would get it peer reviewed.

    Have a happy day.
     
  13. cav755 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    439
    If you are able to understand a particle behaves as a particle then there is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.
     
  14. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    The Philadelphia Phillies, but their prospects are not considered good this year.

    Follow-up question: do you think that citing someone who is widely regarded as a crackpot makes you look more or a lot more ridiculous than just claiming a mass-delusion?
     
  15. cav755 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    439
    Robert Laughlin is a Nobel Laureate who understands the ether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.

    If you were able to understand particles behave as particles then you would be able to understand in a double slit experiment it is the aether which waves.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Even Nobel Laureates can be wrong.
    Albert is one also, and he was wrong.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    In essence, until you get whatever it is you are trying to get everyone to accept, peer reviewed, then you are pissing in the wind.
     
  17. cav755 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    439
    If you were able to understand particles behave as particles then you would be able to understand in a double slit experiment it is the aether which waves.
     
  18. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    How many times doe it have to be told you that the objective science and science DISCUSSION is NOT about YOU or ME, but about the objective points presented for discussion, paddo? When will it get through, mate, that your 'personalizing' and 'peer review' schtick is just lame distractions from discussion on the points? This is a science DISCUSSION BOARD not a peer review Journal, ok? Sinking in yet?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Here again, read what Einstein had to say about WHY the ether context was ABSTRACTED and not actually REMOVED from his thinking, only his mathematical modeling of the ABSTRACT math essentials because the ether could not be identified as to entities/mechanisms or process in real physical terms rather than math abstract terms....which his theory proceeded to model BY DESIGN and INTENT, as follows...


    Now stop trolling and bullying and generally stinking up the place with your troll BS 'beliefs' and 'challenges', and just listen and discuss the points else butt out since you will be irrelevant.

    And apparently you HAVE to be 'told', since you are too insensible of your own silliness to pull yourself up and stop your obsessive-compulsive 'personalizing' and 'believing' and just straight dumb and outdated comic book version 'handles' on things you have not 'clue one' about either way. Do/learn better, paddo.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    As if you would know either way, paddo. Pathetic trolls without any real understanding of either 'side' of the discussion/point are just (as brucep puts it) "idiot wind" pretending to 'know' better than Nobel Laureates.

    Duh! Do/learn better paddo, before you 'obsess-compulse' your usual inanities all over the place again today.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    Only fanatical delusional alternative theorists, pseudoscientists and conspiracy nutters would think that.
    You are welcome into the club.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I actually see you as both talking/posting shit.
    One, posting full pseudoscience rubbish, the other offering conditional underdog support.
    We have many different ideas here on quantum and cosmology, by many different people, that all differ from each other, and are never able to get their act together.
    Against that tripe, we have the established mainstream position, that has already been peer reviewed, and is accepted as the most likely concept at this particular time.
    Whatever Einsteins or Feynmans we have waiting in the wings with new over riding theories, I wait with anticipation for their stuff to undergo the necessary peer review.
     
  22. BlackHoley Banned Banned

    Messages:
    340
    Certainly not you, by any statement.
     
  23. BlackHoley Banned Banned

    Messages:
    340
    Well, I wasn't the one who contradicted myself.
     

Share This Page