Re: The most ridiculous science mistake in history.

On 3/27/2024 12:38 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 03/26/2024 07:21 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:

On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:

There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
an aether?

>
They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.
>
As I keep saying: you have no hope of "regaining" an aether until you
explain how the many quantum effects in electrodynamics are explained by
an aether.
>
Quoting ancient texts to support your position is RELIGION, not science.
(Writings by Maxwell and Einstein are now ancient texts, because science
evolves MUCH faster than religion).
>
Tom Roberts
>

   That's pretty involved.
 It's like, "magnetic monopoles:
nowhere magnetic monopoles, or
everywhere magnetic micropoles". -?
 It's like if there's vacuum energy and asymptotic freedom,
is it Dirac's positronic sea, and Einstein's white-hole sea,
and a magnetic micropole sea, fleeting forever?
 It's like, "is it really that particles never actually
collide, only slingshot, or else they just absorb".
 It's like light and absorption, and light and transmission,
is the classical model really two super-classical models?
 Of course two wrongs don't make a right, and three
explanations don't make sense, yet there's diffraction,
and wave-particle duality and definitely it's exhibited
the wave nature of light, and that the only way that
the impact of a wave as a particle can be stochastic
is as if it's super-classically as of an _infinite_ frequency.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz-c4UcaBcA&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=32
 I'm still trying to figure out even "higher orders of acceleration".
 It's kind of like I read from Feynman about 3/4 through
that podcast, "force is a classical limit", while at the
same time it's a real gradient in a theory of sum potentials
according to the sum of histories.
 Then though before that for a few episodes is "logic
and meta-theory" and "foundations of theory", ...,
some weakest form of metaphysics that still suffices
to be strong platonism and not just empirical.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyWpZQny5cY&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=26
 Another thing that's really involved is high-frequency
vis-a-vis rays, of radiation, "all electromagnetic radiation",
this has that light does not interact with electrical nor
magnetic fields at all, it's not electromagnetic.
  Yeah, I know, two wrongs, ..., yet at some point "keeping
things simple" has gotten too simple, and linearisations
three different ways do not add up to round.
  Mostly it seems that physics does need some infinities,
but only some kind of least infinities, about the continuous
domains,

"then otherwise how the inner is as super as the outer"
Are you the last of the true magicians? I think so.
and these kinds of concept are just right outside

the usual grasp of finitude, yet they're still required,
and, especially, in-teg-ral, to the multiple and various:
law(s) of large numbers.