tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post567300361584748769..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Can aether save relativity?Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-9990608498300282912019-11-29T18:24:16.815-08:002019-11-29T18:24:16.815-08:00Glenn,
Thanks for your reply. In fact, your obse...Glenn,<br /><br />Thanks for your reply. In fact, your observation in the blog about dark energy is what prompted my question. I agree that energy does not exist in the corporeal sense -- nor does movement -- but it is a process that causes trains to move and gravity to occur. It is more than a calculation and cannot be dismissed as such. A red-hot steel ball has vibrational movement (a/k/a energy) inside it and because of the vibrations, the ball will burn your hand if you touch it. If the structure of a steel ball can vibrate, why can't aether (or dark Matter) do the same?<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Duncan<br /><br />[GB: Thanks Duncan. Remember that momentum (P=mv), force (F=ma), and energy (E=mc2) are matter-motion terms. Thus, momentum, force, and energy do not exist or occur. What does exist is the matter (m) and what does occur is the motion (v). Most folks (especially Einstein) have difficulty understanding this—that’s why the E=mc2 equation is usually misinterpreted. Pertinent to your question is the fact (or supposition) that any claim about energy requires a microcosm having mass (m) that performs the motion involved. All three of these matter-motion calculations cannot be dismissed as unimportant. Both aether and dark matter (decelerated aether entrained around cosmic microcosms) are in continual motion and have submicrocosmic motion as you suggest for steel balls.<br /><br />But, strictly speaking energy per se neither exists nor occurs. Only the moving microcosms exist and only their motion occurs. The problem with the regressive analysis is the failure to indicate what microcosm is moving. That is where the erroneous concept of “matterless motion” comes in. In progressive physics, all motions produce accelerations of other microcosms upon collision. Regressives posit no microcosm responsible for “dark energy.” It is certainly not “dark matter,” which is the entrained decelerated aether that forms haloes around baryonic matter. <br /><br />Dark energy is the ad hoc responsible for universal expansion. It is a product of magical thinking. Even if there was a non-luminous microcosm involved, its popping up out of nowhere with enough directed motion to expand the universe would be no more likely than the Big Bang itself.]Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-3471840529699922192019-11-27T22:30:21.362-08:002019-11-27T22:30:21.362-08:00Glenn,
Very interesting stuff!
Re dark energy: ...<br />Glenn,<br /><br />Very interesting stuff!<br /><br />Re dark energy: If dark matter (a/k/a aether) exists, then might movement (vibrations) of the particles that comprise dark matter be considered dark energy? If you are of the view that energy is movement -- and I think you are -- then isn't dark matter a logical place to look for dark energy?<br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br />Duncan<br /><br />[GB: Dark matter forms a halo around cosmological bodies (it is decelerated aether). Dark energy was invented as the propellent for the assumed cosmological expansion. It is immaterial and cannot possibly exist or occur.]Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com