Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / July 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Aether Killer, Wave/Particle Duality Explained?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Fritz - 26 Jul 2005 02:07 GMT
The following statements can explain what's waving and
why Aether is not necessary. Do you agree with it or
not, and why?

A quantum vacuumist who has been studying it for over
60 years stated:

"A photon does not have intrinsic electromagnetic properties.
So how does a bunch of photons make electromagnetic fields?
They do it by exciting vacuum charge "cells". The
electromagnetic properties of electromagnetic radiation
come from the bound charge of the vacuum, not from the
photons. Even QED has photons being created from the
vacuum state for electromagnetic fields. But the funny
thing is that the photon only ends up with properties
of momentum and a spin of one. It does not have charge,
so it cannot have intrinsic electromagnetic properties.
We do know that light waves have electromagnetic properties.
So it must be vacuum charge that is actually doing the waving.
"
FrediFizzx - 26 Jul 2005 04:56 GMT
| The following statements can explain what's waving and
| why Aether is not necessary. Do you agree with it or
| not, and why?
|
| A quantum vacuumist who has been studying it for over
| 60 years stated:

LOL

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Paul Stowe - 26 Jul 2005 05:00 GMT
>| The following statements can explain what's waving and
>| why Aether is not necessary. Do you agree with it or
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> LOL

Indeed!!!

Paul Stowe
EL - 26 Jul 2005 08:32 GMT
I wonder, what took him so long!  ;-)

EL
EL - 26 Jul 2005 08:31 GMT
Are you posting under a new name now, Fredi?  ;-)

EL
FrediFizzx - 26 Jul 2005 19:54 GMT
| Are you posting under a new name now, Fredi?  ;-)

Nope.  I suspect this is our p6 "friend" goofing around. ;-)

FrediFizzx
Izkata - 26 Jul 2005 07:11 GMT
> The following statements can explain what's waving and
> why Aether is not necessary. Do you agree with it or
> not, and why?

Errrr, wasn't the Aether disproved decades ago?
The Ghost In The Machine - 26 Jul 2005 11:00 GMT
In sci.physics, Izkata
<Izkata@Comcast.net>
wrote
on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:11:04 -0500
<q4ydnV3u08x1TnjfRVn-sw@comcast.com>:

>> The following statements can explain what's waving and
>> why Aether is not necessary. Do you agree with it or
>> not, and why?
>
> Errrr, wasn't the Aether disproved decades ago?

I'd say that it's been rendered mathematically unnecessary.
One can never disprove the luminiferous aether, though -- as
one can never *prove* it; it doesn't interact with matter,
just with light.

Signature

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Izkata - 26 Jul 2005 19:18 GMT
> In sci.physics, Izkata
> <Izkata@Comcast.net>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> one can never *prove* it; it doesn't interact with matter,
> just with light.

Thank you for clarifying...
Hah, why did I forget my motto: "That which cannot be prove can also not be
disproven."
hdr - 29 Jul 2005 23:41 GMT
Check

                        http://www.lafn.org/~bd261

                                           Roland Dishington
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.