wrote:
The discussion on the makeup of the structure was never closed. You
put the cart in front of the horse.

The makeup of the structure is irrelevant to this
discussion. Since there is a structure (which is
something) it cannot possibly be nothing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
This is not relevant to the orginal discussion.

On the contrary, this is the crux of the original
discussion - whether a wave can exist outside the
structure of the universe, whatever that may be.

Cecil:

That was what I got out of it ... but then, I focused on Arts'
observation, "One thing is certain, Gauss states that static particles
cannot radiate in free space as there is no exchange of flux ... "

And, obviously, IMHO, he is referring to a space truly "composed of
nothing" and absent of anything even resembling an ether. And, I did
accept that as the crux of his ponder-ings/point(s.)

However, also buried in his text are obvious references to a space such
as the one our universe resides in ... So, once again, one of those
arguments/debates which could go on forever ... and I got those prior
appointments ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Why must there be an "it" through which TEM waves proagate? Why cannot
they propagate through nothingness?

Because the only thing that can propagate through
nothingness is nothing. That should be clear to
the most casual observer.

Well, yeah, makes sense to me ... but then, apparently not others ...
not 100% sure, but yeah, that is where I am at, at the present time.

First that "sea" must fill the void to give us a "media" (ocean) to sail
.... and most certainly a must for RF/light to propagate through!

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
And, obviously, IMHO, he is referring to a space truly "composed of
nothing" and absent of anything even resembling an ether. And, I did
accept that as the crux of his ponder-ings/point(s.)

Maybe "absence of anything even resembling a structure"
would be a better way to put it. It's pretty clear that
if there is no structure for space, then space cannot
exist. Absolute nothing would necessarily be the absence
of any and every *thing* including space.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

That was what I got out of it ... but then, I focused on Arts'
observation, "One thing is certain, Gauss states that static particles
cannot radiate in free space as there is no exchange of flux ... "

Static particles? Does he mean statically charged particles? They don't
radiate, they are attracted to opposite charged matter. But then there is
ionization of a substance.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 12:28 am, John Smith wrote:
wrote:

...

do. Certainly we are a long way from saying that this is an ether or
medium that supports the transmission of TEM waves.

So, let's call it "whipped bananas" and let it go at that ...
traditionally, it has been called the ether or aether ... I just tend to
follow the tradition of the men who first defined it ...

Regards,
JS

Why must there be an "it" through which TEM waves proagate? Why cannot
they propagate through nothingness? Not all volumes of space are
necessarily occupied by any form of matter.

What would the velocity factor of whipped bananas be?

Why must there be an "it" through which TEM waves proagate? Why cannot
they propagate through nothingness?

Because the only thing that can propagate through
nothingness is nothing. That should be clear to
the most casual observer.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

So you are trying to tell me that if I completely evacuate a sealed glass
jar it then contains space? That's like saying the absence of light is
darkness. True as a conceptual description of nothingness. If you choose
to rename nothingness, does that mean it aint nothin? You guys have too
much time on your hands.

That would be true if the casual observer did not consider truly empty
space to be nothingness. I do.

That's obviously a logical contradiction. Space is
something. If space is there, then something is there.
If nothing is there, then space cannot possibly be
there.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

So if nothing is there, it aint nothing after all?

Why must there be an "it" through which TEM waves proagate? Why cannot
they propagate through nothingness?

Because the only thing that can propagate through
nothingness is nothing. That should be clear to
the most casual observer.

Well, yeah, makes sense to me ... but then, apparently not others ...
not 100% sure, but yeah, that is where I am at, at the present time.

First that "sea" must fill the void to give us a "media" (ocean) to sail
... and most certainly a must for RF/light to propagate through!

Regards,
JS

But if nothingness is something (because it has a name) then you can
propagate through it because even nothingness is something so that can be
our "media". In fact it must be the perfect medium because it has a
velocity factor of 1.

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
But the new pictures of light-waves do suggest they travel a medium
which exists, ...

One of my books on the subject calls it the "quantum soup".

And, again, very much in few words ...

And, what a strange "soup", indeed ...

Even a simple observer can change what "soup" finally emerges from the
quantum-soup-can! Be it, chicken? Beef? Vegetable? chuckle

Regards,
JS

Since we need leaps of faith to bridge the gaps in our theories, lets make
it frog's leg soup.