gwyn@BRL.ARPA (07/01/85)
From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL.ARPA> How about coming up with some quantitative theory and comparing its predictions to what is already known? Personally I think physics is all "glorpons". Glorpons have the nice property that they do whatever is necessary to make things happen they way they do.
brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) (07/04/85)
> How about coming up with some quantitative theory and comparing > its predictions to what is already known? > > Personally I think physics is all "glorpons". Glorpons have the > nice property that they do whatever is necessary to make things > happen they way they do. Do glorpons come in colors and flavors like quarks? :-)
rimey@ucbvax.ARPA (Ken Rimey) (07/04/85)
>How about if we say that a mass causes a curvature in the ETHER instead >of a curvature in space? Then how bout we say that it isn't a curvature >its a change in density. ... How about we say >that it is really this ETHER 'pressure' that holds us to the planet? ... > > Eric How about we say that things fall because their natural place is on the ground. How about we say that the planets go 'round because angels blow. Your theory has zero content. A bunch of vague statements that sound intuitively plausible does not make a scientific theory. General relativity is a mathematical theory with precise numerical predictions. It is not full of arbitrary fudges. Curved space is a precise mathematical idea that you simply don't understand. The paths followed by particles are natural, not arbitrary. In curved space, there is no such thing as a straight line; a geodesic is the closest analogue. Ken
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (07/04/85)
> From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL.ARPA> > > How about coming up with some quantitative theory and comparing > its predictions to what is already known? > > Personally I think physics is all "glorpons". Glorpons have the > nice property that they do whatever is necessary to make things > happen they way they do. That' pretty much true, but you left out: in the simplest manner possible. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto PHRI NYC (allegra!phri!lonetto) Do you think it's REAL?
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (07/04/85)
> > How about if we say that a mass causes a curvature in the ETHER instead > of a curvature in space? Then how bout we say that it isn't a curvature > its a change in density. The closer to a mass the higher the density > the farther away the lower the density. How about we say that this > change in density can maybe cause light to be bent because the ETHER > is of higher density than when not near the mass. How about we say > that it is really this ETHER 'pressure' that holds us to the planet? > > But anyway, where am I messing up? I find this an easier way to look > at things than to think of space curving. > > Eric It's fine except that the ETHER doesn't have mass, it's made of gravity. Now if you could measure the density of gravitrons.... -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto PHRI NYC (allegra!phri!lonetto) Do you think it's REAL?
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (07/05/85)
> Do glorpons come in colors and flavors like quarks? :-)
Why not. They certainly must come with smarts.bradford@AMSAA.ARPA (07/06/85)
From: Cymru am Byth! <bradford@AMSAA.ARPA> >> How about coming up with some quantitative theory and comparing >> its predictions to what is already known? >> >> Personally I think physics is all "glorpons". Glorpons have the >> nice property that they do whatever is necessary to make things >> happen they way they do. >Do glorpons come in colors and flavors like quarks? :-) All the ones I've ever seen have a sort of rose-tinted look... PJB "So you think being drunk feels good -- tell that to a glass of water!"
infinity%udel-cc-vax2.delaware@udel-louie.ARPA (07/07/85)
From: ALBERS <infinity%udel-cc-vax2.delaware@udel-louie.ARPA> Ok, you obviously liked the last letter I sent (ha). Heres a more lunitic idea: (should be good for a laugh) How about if we say that a mass causes a curvature in the ETHER instead of a curvature in space? Then how bout we say that it isn't a curvature its a change in density. The closer to a mass the higher the density the farther away the lower the density. How about we say that this change in density can maybe cause light to be bent because the ETHER is of higher density than when not near the mass. How about we say that it is really this ETHER 'pressure' that holds us to the planet? How bout we say that time (process rate) is effected by a higher density of ETHER to the effect of causing time 'process rate' to slow? How about if I explained in the same easy way how matter and magnetism relate to ETHER in a clear and understandable way? Hmmm... lets see... light,gravity,magnetism,time,matter hmmm... sounds interesting. But anyway, where am I messing up? I find this an easier way to look at things than to think of space curving. Eric
brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) (07/08/85)
> >Do glorpons come in colors and flavors like quarks? :-) > > > All the ones I've ever seen have a sort of rose-tinted look... > > PJB > Great! this sounds like progress. now for the BIG question. Have you seen any quarks lately?
grl@charm.UUCP (George Lake) (07/19/85)
Space and the vacuum do have certain properties. We can
detect an absolute motion by looking at the microwave background
radiation. It is a 2.7 degree blackbody that is known to
have only one anisotropy-- the motion of our galaxy at
a velocity of 600 km/s in the direction of HERCULES.
But-- ether is the stuff that light needed to propogate in--
the material that the wave was moving through.
Higgs fields, 2.7degree background, etc-- None of that is ether.