Critique of TSW Part 20a Origin of Life

Blog 20140924 

Bill suggests that the origin of life from inorganic matter would be better termed abiogenesis. I agree.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Origin of Life (Part 1 of 2)

BW: Generally, I agree with all of your conclusions, but there are several weaknesses in the argument.

TSW:  "... the scientific study of biopoesis, which is the process by which life originated from inanimate matter."

BW: I don't think that's the correct term. Biopoesis (or biopoiesis, or biogênese) was a coined word that specifically referred to "process of living matter evolving from self-replicating but nonliving molecules." I'm not sure what were considered self-replicating non-living matter at the time Oparin [1940] coined it, but Dmitri Ivanovsky had discovered a tobacco mosaic virus 50 years earlier and thought it was self-replicating. He was wrong, but viruses were considered the precursors of living cellular bacteria for several decades:
http://www.virology.ws/2009/03/19/viruses-and-the-tree-of-life/

The correct term for the evolution of life from non-living matter is "Abiogenesis".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[GB: Good suggestion.

TSW:  "Frederick Engels was among the first to suggest that life originated from inanimate matter."

BW: Dicta from the Federick Engels Fan Club? Two millennia before Engels [1883 AD], Aristotle [350 BC] suggested that life arose from inanimate matter. He was wrong on the details (mainly due to erroneous reports from Egypt), but the presumption was popular for many centuries. Even primitive biblical authors thought Adam was "made from" clay.

It wasn't Engels' idea in any case. In "The Dialectics of Nature", Engels refers to scientific reports "only about ten years ago", probably referring to either Wöhler or Dmitri Ivanovsky, who had both observed that viruses exhibited some of the characteristics of life.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/ch01.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Ivanovsky

TSW:  "... neo-Darwinism, must be considered useless for this purpose because biopoesis is the study of the transition from the nonbiologic into the biologic."

BW: Except that, years before Ivanovsky, Charles Darwin [1871] expressed his belief that life evolved from a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes"." (See Wiki link on Abiogenesis.)

But, if the Engels Fan Club considers Engels' speculation to be "among the first", or contrary to Darwin, fine.

[GB: Thanks for the refs. You have shown that ideas about abiogenesis were in the air for centuries. It seems that like your experience, wherever I look, really new ideas are rare. There are smidgeons of thought on almost any topic imaginable. Your Darwin reference shows that he was more enlightened about abiogenesis than many of his successors who maintain that evolution only involves genes + natural selection. Like the almost total ignorance of Newton’s push theory, Darwin’s mention of abiogenesis was mostly ignored because it did not fit the indeterministic program. In the philosophical struggle, to the winner belong the spoils. The touchy nature of abiogenesis and its implications for religion left the field open to materialists and atheists—a lesson to all scientists tempted to use indeterministic assumptions instead.]

TSW:  "... the only way to preserve finity is to lump all the less important conditions under a singular cause: chance."

BW: Granted, that was one popular view after Darwin's book, propounded by those who discovered that cosmic rays *could* modify DNA, but only "probably" a cause of any particular mutation. That has taken a back seat to many other causes, but many of them are "chance" occurrences. Nothing to do with finity or infinity.

[GB: No. There is no such thing or occurrence as “chance.” Reread the section on the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything.) Without our assumption of infinity, that statement would not be true. True to form, you seem to think of this as a mere quibble, but it is essential to the whole argument of "The Scientific Worldview." Your reluctance to dump Aristotle’s “absolute chance” is still typical of today’s indeterminists. With the idealist’s belief in solid matter and empty space necessary for Finite Particle Theory, comes the consupponible belief in absolute chance. On the other hand, univironmental determinism claims that, within what is normally called “chance” or “chaos,” lies an infinity of microcosms in motion producing an infinity of material causes, as assumed in the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). There is no empty space anywhere in the infinite universe, just as there is no solid matter anywhere in the infinite universe. The word “chance” should be banned from our vocabulary—it is nothing more than observer ignorance.]

TSW:  "This quasi-Aristotelian view, that biopoesis is unlikely rather than likely ..."

BW: Again, ragging on Aristotle, for no good reason. See above.

[GB: See above. Aristotle’s mistake is very important because it is exploited heavily by indeterminists. For instance, the “unlikely” claim derived from it is used by creationists and other indeterminists as an opening for the “god-of-the-gaps” arguments they use to confront evolution in favor of their god hypotheses. Of course, given the proper univironment, abiogenesis not only likely, it is a near certainty. One could not be an exobiologist without that assumption. The discovery of the first exoplanet in 1988 (4 years after I finished the first draft of "The Scientific Worldview") puts us well on the way to discovering life elsewhere in the universe.]

TSW:  "A protein consisting of a chain of 100 amino acids is necessary for life as we know it."

BW: Actually, only 23 amino acids are produced by most living life forms, but they are all "assembled" by DNA/RNA, not by random encounters. Proteins are the *result* of DNA, not the cause of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein

[GB: Partly true. My statement is correct as written. Glad to see that you are backing away from chance as an operator. Sorry, but proteins can form independently of DNA. As mentioned in the Wikipedia article you cited: “Short proteins can also be synthesized chemically by a family of methods known as peptide synthesis, which rely on organic synthesis techniques such as chemical ligation to produce peptides in high yield.” No one would call such syntheses abiogenetic, although they might be necessary steps to producing life in a test tube.]

Next: The Origin of Life (Part 2 of 2)

cotsw 043

Critique of TSW Part 19c Light

Blog 20140917 

As an aether denier, Bill has problems with the wave theory of light despite the contradictions posed by the wave-particle duality of regressive physics.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Univironmental Theory of Light (Part 3 of 3)

TSW:  "Eddington’s celebrated 'observation' that the path of light from a distant star is curved by its passage near the sun."

BW: The path IS curved by gravity (which you seem to endorse), but Eddington's data certainly didn't prove it. Even if it had, it would simply confirm Newton's gravitational theory, asserting that the sun would affect massive light corpuscles.

[GB: Sorry, but the path is not curved by gravity. It is simple refraction in the Sun’s atmosphere per Dowdy’s recent work showing that light from stars outside the atmosphere is unaffected, proving that light is not a particle.]

TSW:  Eber: "... the Universe had no beginning, and is consequently infinite in spacetime."

BW: You're jumping back to your prior arguments about an infinite universe, which isn't really relevant to gravitational theory or the nature of light. However, a few comments:

TSW:  "Astronomers have discovered that galaxies decelerate as they diverge from one another."

BW: Actually, the exact opposite is suggested by current redshift evidence: the most remote galaxies are *accelerating* away at a greater speed:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/jan/30/galaxy-distortions-shed-light-on-cosmic-acceleration

... which kind of messes up Hubble's Constant.

[GB: Good catch. That reference was from 1977—way before the expansion of the universe was presumed to be accelerating. Incidentally, more than Hubble was messed up. The alleged acceleration was no more nutty than the whole idea of the universe expanding from nothing. In the mind of the indeterminist, there is nothing like the acceleration of a collidee without the collider. They even had to invent “dark energy” to account for it. Of course, there is no such thing as dark energy, just as there is no such thing as energy, which simply is a calculation concerning the behavior of matter in motion. Glad to see that your “*accelerating*” seems to indicate that you are dubious also.]

BW: It is true that the aether theory requires deceleration, but an infinite universe theory requires persistent equilibrium. The two aren't consupponible:
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/05/15/rspa.2010.0044.full

[GB: I get this a lot. Indeterminists tend to think of equilibrium as some kind of stasis. A universe described by the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion) and the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things) is definitely not static. Steve and I used those assumptions in “Universal Cycle Theory” to good effect.]

TSW:  "... because mass is a reflection of these internal motions, the mass of a galaxy decreases as it radiates."

BW: A strange endorsement of the idea that mass is *caused by* motion, which is postulated in Einstein's SR. It's also a contradiction of your earlier assertion that motion is "what matter does", rather than motion being an object that can cause effects.

[GB: I have explained this in a recent Blog on January 22, 2014. The upshot: The neomechanical absorption of motion internally causes submicrocosms to accelerate. The resulting increase in momentum appears as an increase in the resistance of the microcosm to acceleration (definition of mass). The reverse happens when some of the internal motion of matter is transmitted to the macrocosm via emission to the aether. None of this objectifies motion, although it would not work without an aether. Aether deniers are forced to estrange motion from matter, thinking of the radiated energy as a kind of matterless motion. That is why indeterminists use “dark matter” and “dark energy” in the same sentence, implying that they are two different dark “things.”]

TSW:  "Like all other microcosms, [protons and electrons] too are subject to the gravitational bombardment that tends to push them together."

BW: Strangely out of sync with your proposition that gravity is the *absence* of material aether, which can't produce "bombardment".

[GB: In 2007, when "The Scientific Worldview" was published, I realized that gravitation had to be a push per Newton’s Second Law of Motion. The Le Sage theory appeared to be the best push theory at the time. In that theory the aether deficient areas were produced by shadowing between bodies impacted by gravitons from all directions of outer space. The uneven bombardment would produce a sort vacuum, causing the bodies to be pushed together. This would work for atoms as well, so your point is not well taken.

Of course, by 2012, Steve and I developed our own Neomechanical Gravitation Theory, which we belatedly found to have been suggested by Newton. The gravitational bombardment still occurs, but it is produced by slight differences in aether pressure in the same way that slight differences in air pressure cause helium balloons to rise. The direction of motion is reversed because aether pressure increases with distance from baryonic matter.]  

TSW:  "The Theory of the Infinite Universe sketched above is in some ways similar to the 'steady-state theory' ..."

BW: Inconsistent with your prior statement that galaxies are decelerating, which suggests a collapsing universe.

[GB: I suspect that once astronomers finally figure it out, galaxies in general will be found to be neither accelerating nor decelerating. Even if that were not the case, it would have little to do with the infinite universe as a whole. All microcosms are either expanding or contracting at any particular moment per complementarity.]

TSW:  "The relative increase in internal motion of already existing submicrocosms is measured as a relative increase in mass."

BW: You haven't explicitly defended the proposition that the motion of matter causes mass, which strikes me as a circular, self-contradictory idea: mass has to exist before it can move. IF it were true that relative motion causes mass, then every material object in the universe would be eternally expanding. Back to a solid "Block Universe".

[GB: Your idea that “mass has to exist before it can move” certainly is consistent with your microcosmic finity assumption and your frequent opposition to inseparability. See above for the explanation of how internal motion produces an increase in mass. Per the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed), the total amount of matter and motion in the universe is constant. Go back to our fundamental definitions:

1. Matter is any xyz portion of the universe that contains other matter, ad infinitum.
2. Mass is the resistance of a microcosm to acceleration.

Thus mass can increase (due to an increase in submicrocosmic motion), even though the amount of matter does not change. Remember that this increase in mass is due to an increase in the velocity of submicrocosms. It has nothing to do with the velocity of the microcosm per se, which was erroneously proposed by Einstein. Thus, we seem to agree that velocity cannot magically increase the mass of a microcosm in the absence of a macrocosm. On the other hand, any acceleration produces impacts that increase mass. Thus, the mass of the space shuttle increases at it collides with the atmosphere, heating up in the process. The mass decreases as it cools. That is why a hot coffee cup has more mass than a cool one, although it has the same amount of matter in each case.]

BW: BTW: You mention Steven Bryant in your article on gravity. I'd read everything on his website and sent him a few questions about his MMX analysis. That prompted a flurry of emails and his subsequent agreement with my article on the experiment, demonstrating that MMX *could not have shown* any aether effects. Let me know if you'd like a copy of that article (incorporating some revisions suggested by Steven).

[GB: Sure would like a copy. The Michelson and Morley (1887) data had a slight effect greater than experimental error. I certainly would like to see how you made that go away.]

Next: The Origin of Life

cotsw 042

Critique of TSW Part 19b Light

Blog 20140910 

As an aether denier, Bill has problems with the wave theory of light despite the contradictions posed by the wave-particle duality of regressive physics.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Univironmental Theory of Light (Part 2 of 3)

TSW:  "The conventional interpretation sees the redshift as a result of the relative motion of the observer and the observed ..."

BW: Which is very strange, because SR [Special Relativity Theory] stipulates a SOL [speed of light] that is independent of the velocity of the emitter. If c is a constant, then there shouldn't be ANY Doppler shift at all. I've never seen an explanation that reconciles SR with redshift.

[GB: Good point. This is another of the many logical contradictions in Special Relativity Theory. In addition, the Doppler shift only can occur for wave motion in a medium. Regressive physicists continue to ignore the evidence for an aether medium. For instance, the light from the first galaxy discovered, Andromeda, is blueshifted—an obvious proof that the Doppler shift occurs for light and that aether therefore must exist.]

TSW:  Asimov: "... if it were indeed losing energy in this fashion, no one could offer a reasonable explanation as to what became of that energy."

BW: Which is the problem with any wave theory of light: the media not only slows, it also disperses the energy in every kinetic collision of its component particles. If light is a wave in an aether media, the night sky should be a uniform shade of dark red, with no stars visible.

[GB: It is also a problem with any corpuscular theory of light. No microcosm can travel from source to observer without encountering other microcosms that absorb some of its motion. Even if light were a photon, the many photons from all the various light sources would collide with each other diminishing the motion of each of them. This points to the special characteristics of aether particles that I speculated upon in comments to my Blog of August 28, 2013:

“As mentioned early on, I assume Planck’s equation to be indicative of “the smallest unit of motion” (i.e., the collision produced by a single photon or aether particle)… Like Planck, I assume that this single collision occurs at a velocity of c according to the equation: E = hv. This assumption implies that the E in the above equation is also equivalent to mc², which yields a photon or aether mass of 7.362 X 10^-48 g [The actual value could be half this if we use the equation for kinetic energy (1/2 mv²)]. That result poses serious implications for further speculation.

The known electron mass is 9.109 X 10^-28 g. The known classical electron radius is 2.8179 X 10^-13 cm. Thus, the volume of the electron would be 9.3727 X 10^-38 cm³. This yields an electron density of 0.97186 X 10¹⁰ g/cm³, with the number of photons or aether particles being 1.2373 X 10²⁰ in the aether vortex I hypothesized for the structure of the electron at the end of my E=mc² paper published in 2009. All this fits with the extremely small size and high density that Steve and I consider necessary for the aether model we hypothesized in our 2011 book.”

If the electron density really is 10¹⁰ g/cm³, then the density of aether particles is many magnitudes greater even though their mass is only about 10^-48 g. This high density probably is why light transmission is so efficient. While we don’t hypothesize that the aether microcosm contains “solid matter,” there seems to be only a small amount of “empty space” within. The submicrocosmic absorption of motion probably would be nearly nil and probably would not be observed for less than intergalactic distances. In any case, we cannot presume that aether particles have the same properties as the baryonic complexes formed from them.]

TSW:  Olbers: "Why is the sky dark at night?

In an infinite universe with perfect light transmission, any line of sight in any direction would encounter a star. The night sky would be wholly lit up."

BW: Not true. Light is a radial emission, so the further away the star, the weaker the incident energy on Earth. The only paradox is when light is considered a "transmitted" wave, as noted. There's no problem for a light particle to travel forever in a (mostly) vacant (imperfect) vacuum.

[GB: No. As with all paradoxes, this one contains an incorrect assumption: “perfect light transmission.” The diminishment of light with distance would occur whether it was a wave or particle. No microcosm can travel through the macrocosm without losses per neomechanics. Similarly, no wave motion can travel through the macrocosm without losses per neomechanics. That is why an unfueled vehicle stops on its way from LA to Chicago and why LA’s earthquakes are not felt in Chicago.]

TSW:  "... in electromagnetic theory a return to some form of the ether is necessary."

BW: Not at all. It just requires an energetic particle with structure and motion that produces wave-like effects. Maxwell considered light a "corpuscle" and Ritz explained the correct theory for light emission ... which is the only one compatible with redshift.

[GB: Read “Universal Cycle Theory” on this subject. Sorry, but a single particle without a macrocosm cannot produce “wave-like effects,” as I have explained many times before. Without the aether, your single particle is like a ship without a sea. See my November 28, 2012 Blog on this in which Morgan Freeman grovels over the wave-particle duality paradox even though the macrocosmic waves are right in front of his eyes.] 

TSW:  Engels: "If the ether offers resistance at all, it must also offer resistance to light, and so at a certain distance be impenetrable to light."

BW: Correct, but he was just echoing Olbers. This is an argument *against* an aether medium, not for it. Engels was primarily a political philosopher, not a scientist.

[GB: Bill, you seem to have gotten this mixed up. By incorrectly assuming “perfect light transmission,” one might conclude that the night sky is dark because the universe is finite. Light from distant stars does not reach us because there aren’t any. As mentioned, this deduction is true for both corpuscular and wave theories. In those days (1823 for Olbers and 1883 for Engels), aether denial had not raised its ugly head. Engels, whether scientist, philosopher, or just one of us, was prescient in his analysis of the situation, although the “if the ether offers resistance at all” part shows a bit of unwarranted uncertainty about what wave motion entails.]

TSW:  Dirac: "We may very well have an ether ... provided we are willing to consider the perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not attainable in practice."

BW: Another argument *against* an aether medium, not for it. There can't be a "perfect vacuum" that is occupied by an idealized aether with ZERO resistance to light and PERFECT transmission. The particle theory doesn't require a perfect vacuum, just mostly vacant space.

[GB: Huh? What part of “idealized state” don’t you get? He is saying that we must choose between aether or an imagined perfect vacuum. He says nothing about the properties of the aether medium. Where does he hypothesize ideal zero resistance and perfect transmission for aether?]

Next: The Univironmental Theory of Light (Part 3 of 3)

cotsw 041

Critique of TSW Part 19a Light

Blog 20140903

As an aether denier, Bill has problems with the wave theory of light despite the contradictions posed by the wave-particle duality of regressive physics.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Univironmental Theory of Light (Part 1 of 3)

TSW:  "... all photons, assuming they all have identical masses, would have the same energy ... a return to the simple particle or ballistic theory of light was not tenable."

BW: Yes, an unreasonable assumption that they have identical masses. So, although they all have the same fundamental characteristics, the mass of a photon has to be directly correlated to its frequency. Of course, "relativistic mass" confuses the issue with a zero "rest mass", but ... assuming light is traveling at c, then the masses must be different. Also note that a photon doesn't have to be a rigid, spherical particle.

[GB: In other words, the theory is untenable.]

TSW:  "Planck, however, speculated that radiation was emitted in bundles or packets, quanta, which were propagated as waves."

BW: Actually, that interpretation was imposed on him by others; he just noted a mathematical correlation. In my view, the Planck Constant is actually just a conversion factor, from frequency to energy. Properly understood, it just means that frequency is a *proxy* for mass, not that there are "jumps" in light frequency, mass, or energy. There are no bundles or packets. Photons are just (variable) masses in a particular configuration that results in a (variable) frequency in (variable) motion.

[GB: You have shown what a mess is created by the particle theory of light. Elsewhere, I have speculated that the Planck Constant is just what is claimed for it: the smallest unit of motion that we can detect. In neomechanics, this involves collisions between aether particles or between aether particles and ordinary (baryonic) matter. A single particle cannot have a frequency, as that is only a group property. Thus, a water molecule cannot produce a water wave—it takes billions of water molecules to do that. The wave-like properties ascribed to certain individual microcosms are due to the macrocosm in which they exist. A ship at sea produces waves in its macrocosm, while a photon cannot do so because, according to aether deniers, its macrocosm is perfectly empty.]

TSW:  "Einstein‘s light is a microcosm without a macrocosm. This is why he was opposed to the idea of ether ..."

BW: I can provide a dozen Einstein quotes in which he says it *must* exist, but that his formulation doesn't require (or allow) us to measure or quantify any features of the aether medium. As I've pointed out before, SR was just a convenient way to evade the results of the M-M experiment and preserve light as a wave.

[GB: Right, he mentioned that in a famous speech in 1920. It fell on unreceptive ears, and like he said and you repeated, relativity did not require aether. Moreover, as you mentioned before, relativity was not about reality. Note that the Michelson and Morley (1887) experiment was a test of a fixed aether. An entrained aether like the one that Steve and I include in our “Universal Cycle Theory” would not have been detected near sea level. The idea for fixed aether was born of the indeterministic assumption of separability, which opposes the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). Even today, various speculators continue to imagine fixed aether models, sometimes including highly regular, fixed fence-like features. In a way, relativity implied that a fixed reference frame was impossible—all things in the universe were moving with respect to all other things. This is one thing we can agree with Einstein (unless one is a finite particle theorist).]

TSW:  "... Morley, Michelson, and Dayton Miller ... performed numerous experiments ... with much improved apparatus. Many were done at high altitude under reduced shielding, which increased the effect dramatically ... Voluminous evidence was compiled in favor of ether drift."

BW: M-M and Miller concluded exactly the same thing: no detection of known planetary motion. M-M thought they had found a tiny effect, about one fortieth of their prediction, but Miller explicitly said Earth motion "could not be identified in the curves of observation." He did report a tiny cosmologic drift, "incompatible with zero", toward the constellation Dorado, which also happens to be the South Ecliptic Pole, suggesting that the deviation was simply an effect of cyclical ecliptic tilts.

[GB: Check again. Miller’s work showed about 10 km/s at the highest elevation. Here is Figure 8-2 from TSW (p. 202) that I prepared from aether measurements:

Note that the velocity measured is a function of the square root of the altitude. The data suggest that the expected motion of Earth around the sun (30 km/s) would not be detectable until the stratosphere was reached.]

TSW:  "... unheralded experiments in the Ukraine by Y. M. Galaev once again confirmed Miller’s detection of the ether."

BW: He only confirmed the tiny cosmologic drift found by Miller. Both results have been highly disputed and neither has been confirmed by any modern experiment. Aether "entrainment" was disproved by Feynman, since the friction would require that the Earth's orbital velocity would have been reduced by 20% since the planet's formation ... clearly not possible.

[GB: Galaev’s work is not all that old: 2002. Please let me know of any “modern” experiment that falsified Galaev. I doubt this, since aether research is not really a hotbed of activity among aether deniers of the regressive physics community. I am not familiar with the assumptions used by Feynman, but it seems clear that Earth’s entrained baryonic atmosphere contributes little to reductions in orbital velocity. Figure 8-2 indicates that aether does not respond to gravitation in the same way that nitrogen and oxygen of the atmosphere does.]

TSW:  "4. Like the atmosphere, the density of the etherosphere increases with nearness to the surface of the earth."

BW: This is a direct contradiction of your statement in the Neomechanical Gravitation Theory paper, which says "The activity and density of free aether particles are greatest in the so-called vacuum of intergalactic space ..." You can't have it both ways.

[GB: Good catch Bill. I now suspect that the apparent contradiction is due to the properties of entrainment and the method of measurement rather than the density, which is what I thought it to be in 2007. As mentioned, the entrainment is not a simple function of gravitation as is apparent for the atmosphere (Figure 8-2). This makes sense because aether_-1 particles are the producers of the gravitation of baryonic matter. Any gravitation of aether_-1 particles would be produced by aether_-2 particles in a similar manner. In the second edition, I would change the word “density” to “entrainment” in that sentence.]   

TSW:  "5. Like all wave motion, the velocity of light in ether is not constant, but varies as a function of ether density, temperature, viscosity, and elasticity."

BW: Although you discuss density, you never describe any of the other characteristics. Of course, it's difficult to do that for objects that have never been detected. You're simply assuming that the aether is similar to water, air, and other media ... as has been done for decades.

Next: The Univironmental Theory of Light (Part 2 of 3)

cotsw 040