On 5/31/2011 11:00 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 10:42 PM, Olrik wrote:
On 2011-06-01 01:32, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 10:26 PM, Olrik wrote:
On 2011-06-01 01:22, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 10:18 PM, Olrik wrote:
On 2011-06-01 01:13, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 10:12 PM, Olrik wrote:
On 2011-06-01 01:05, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 9:42 PM, Olrik wrote:

...
Huh?
...

Yeah, the particularly dense have a problem here,

That would what, 7 billions of us except two usenet kooks?

understanding this,
for some strange reason, and, like I said, it doesn't seem to be
taught
in schools, so, let me rephrase:

"Nothing can't hold something."

The logic of that statement is self-explanatory. You can NOT "put"
something into nothing because there would be no "space" to
"put" it
into!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation


Think about it, you may, eventually, catch on ... or not ...

It doesn't matter what you or me "think about it".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

Or try to explain how satellite TV is distributed.

Regards,
JS



That is off on a tangent of what post I originally comment to ...

We were talking about "empty" being an impossible concept ...
"impossible" in the fact that we simply have no physical examples of
such existing ... it is only a concept at this time.

So far as we know, there has always been "something", even before the
matter of what we can see, feel and hear existed ...

Have a nice life.

Regards,
JS



I warned you, the particularly dense have a great problem in the
comprehension of the reality of things ...

Indeed. Look, you seem to be a nice sport.

I don't know what you have against the propagation of EM waves in a
vacuum. Is it ideological? Philosophical? Religious?


I don't even see where that question applies! It is you who has a
religious belief in the imaginary concept of "nothing", and, although
you do refer to it as "a vacuum", you assign it the concept of
"nothing." The electrons "transversing the vacuum" are actually being
conducted by the either!

Most kooks that espoused your views have the decency to invent the
"aether" (or ether, if you will), that explains waves propagation in a
"vacuum".


The "electron wave theory" MUST have a medium, I don't care if you are
talking about "shooting bullets" though "something" or having waves of
some frequency transversing a medium, both share the dependence of
having to have "something" to travel in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether


Yes, but I think Einsteins gravitational either is, probably, a bit more
towards correct ... but then, at this time, we don't even have a
"bottle" which will hold the stuff! It travels though the spaces of the
atoms of our matter as easily as the wind passes though a wire screen!
If we can't even "hold a sample" of it, let alone "see" it or "touch"
it, how are we even to begin to study the fabric of space (your vacuum?)

(Hint: the way to convince is not to disparage a given theory, but to
actually, positively provide a working alternative theory!)

So: how do satellite TV receive their signals?


The "particles" composing the either (or waves generated within) seem to
interact with antennas made from our matter, usually of metal
construction. At this time, the only model I can conceptionalize is that
of a bullet being shot from a gun (or an emitted electron), or a wave
transversing a pond -- so, at this time, I must accept that the either
is transversed in a logical and similar manner, and imitating what I can
realize/know/see/model/etc. ... such as Einsteins example (model) of
using a bowling ball and a mattress to conceptualize the warping of
gravity on space/time.

Good luck for that Nobel prize!

As you pointed out, with the theory of the Luminiferous Aether (or,
Einsteins' gravitational either) man has long been aware of the
existence of it -- they don't give nobel prizes for "rediscovering"
something ... but, thanks for the support!

Regards,
JS

And, I just noticed, I am spelling ether as either ... I do that, yanno'?

Regards,
JS

On May 31, 10:58*pm, wrote:

And how do you explain RF coming from the outer space ? ? ?

I would not put much stock in his aetherial explanations. He's a KooK.

On 5/31/2011 11:18 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 31, 10:58 pm, wrote:

And how do you explain RF coming from the outer space ? ? ?

I would not put much stock in his aetherial explanations. He's a KooK.

Well, it was Einsteins view upon it, I simply think he has it "close to
right."

But then, "they" are questioning his theory on relativity -- which, I
might add, depends on the gravitational ether for validity! And,
Einstein first denied the Luminferious ether, but when his theory kept
demanding such a medium, he made allowance for a gravitational ether --
you are aware of this, right?

So, give us your "non-kook" version of "what-is-REALLY-goin'-on?"

Regards,
JS

On 5/31/2011 11:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 11:18 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 31, 10:58 pm, wrote:

And how do you explain RF coming from the outer space ? ? ?

I would not put much stock in his aetherial explanations. He's a KooK.

Well, it was Einsteins view upon it, I simply think he has it "close to
right."

But then, "they" are questioning his theory on relativity -- which, I
might add, depends on the gravitational ether for validity! And,
Einstein first denied the Luminferious ether, but when his theory kept
demanding such a medium, he made allowance for a gravitational ether --
you are aware of this, right?

So, give us your "non-kook" version of "what-is-REALLY-goin'-on?"

Regards,
JS


Indeed, let me be more specific, in regards to Einstein theorizing and
modeling the warping the "space/time", what exactly is gravity warping
in space? Is it warping the vacuum? And, wouldn't you first have to
have "something" to be able to warp it?

I am afraid, I have very set ideas on this, so before I put them to
text, you should first give me the "non-kook truth", of how you warp
"nothing?" :-)

Regards,
JS

On 5/31/2011 11:27 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 11:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 11:18 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 31, 10:58 pm, wrote:

And how do you explain RF coming from the outer space ? ? ?

I would not put much stock in his aetherial explanations. He's a KooK.

Well, it was Einsteins view upon it, I simply think he has it "close to
right."

But then, "they" are questioning his theory on relativity -- which, I
might add, depends on the gravitational ether for validity! And,
Einstein first denied the Luminferious ether, but when his theory kept
demanding such a medium, he made allowance for a gravitational ether --
you are aware of this, right?

So, give us your "non-kook" version of "what-is-REALLY-goin'-on?"

Regards,
JS


Indeed, let me be more specific, in regards to Einstein theorizing and
modeling the warping the "space/time", what exactly is gravity warping
in space? Is it warping the vacuum? And, wouldn't you first have to have
"something" to be able to warp it?

I am afraid, I have very set ideas on this, so before I put them to
text, you should first give me the "non-kook truth", of how you warp
"nothing?" :-)

Regards,
JS


Yanno'? I was just thinking, we need to agree on the ground rules
first, we do agree that "nothing" and "time" (as our concept of it
defines it) don't exist in reality, right? They are only imaginary
concepts constructed to put "order" and "understanding" on "our
universe?" (and yes, it is weird we put "time" into equations, since it
is only relative, and has no existence in reality.) In this regard, I
am speaking to time as ONLY being movement, and measured by the earths
rotation, so has NO meaning to someone on the other side of the
universe. Indeed, even very impressive "ATOMIC CLOCKS" are really just
measuring "radioactive decay", or the movement of atomic particles --
which I might add, we just discovered is NOT uniform and predicable, at
the present time -- this just being discovered ...

I mean, unless we get the "kooky stuff" out of the way first, everything
else will fail, in just being based on "kookery!"

As, I have to point out, your definition of "kook" and mine seem to have
far different meanings! So, if we are both looking at the same
phenomenon, and arguing the reality of them, we need to find out who is
in error!

Regards,
JS

On Jun 1, 12:48*am, John Smith wrote:

Yanno'? *I was just thinking,

Stop lying, Johnny KQQK.

If that was true, then it would apply to all Electromagnetic Radiation. In that case, we wouldn't be alive because we wouldn't have sunlight. Of course, being alive entails a sense of being which apparently the poster does not have, not ever having seen the sun.