Re: [Vo]:Arguments for an "Aether"

[Jonathan Berry]

Yes, that is my point especially with the existence of a displacement
current in a vacuum demands there be something to displace.

And that is really what is seen with the lamb shift, the electric field
polarizes the vacuum.

And it is kinda predictable by the fact the vacuum has such properties as
you state, all paints the same picture, space isn't empty and General
Relativity agrees.


On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 at 11:23, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Electric permittivity and magnetic megmiabilityu of space necessary to
> calculate the speed of light support the physical model of space and hence
> the concept of an anther.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows
>
>
>
> *From: *Jonathan Berry 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, October 11, 2022 12:04 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Arguments for an "Aether"
>
>
>
> Well if you consider all of the possible interactions that could happen
> with so-called virtual particles (whatever quantum field theory might call
> them) it calculates the exact value and is the "most successful
> calculation/prediction in physics".  I can't judge the relative value of
> the model you mention but I would argue that even if it somehow explains
> away for example Lamb shift, how would other phenomena that give evidence
> of a substantive and energetic nature to space be discounted?
>
>
>
> For example the Casimir effect, are you saying this isn't a result of
> eliminating certian frequency modes in the Quantum field?
>
>
>
> And the permitivity of free space and displscement current in a vacuum,
> are you saying there is nothing in the vacuum to be displaced? (polarized)
>
>
>
> There is a lot more than just Lamb shift that nerds to be explained away.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022, 1:23 am Jürg Wyttenbach,  wrote:
>
> So we know that the electric field from the Nucleus of a Hydrogen Nucleus
> can polarize the virtual particles and cause partial shielding, this
> results in the Lamb shift.
>
> This is standard model word salad. Virtual particles  are just a
> mathematical construct an thus never something real.
>
>
>
> Lamb shift only happens inside a field so this is a forced interaction. We
> can exactly calculate the Proton fine structure frequency (See basics in
> Mills but needs some metric added..) from first principle and there we use
> no virtual particles.
>
> All non circular orbits have two extremes what explains the shift in
> min/max energy.
>
> Hence no ether or other fantasy needed.
>
> J.W.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11.10.2022 11:01, Jonathan Berry wrote:
>
> I would like to hear any counter points to these arguments.
>
>
>
> Firstly the Aether I am talking about IS NOT NECESSARILY the
> Luminiferous Aether/Ether considered disproven, though some arguments will
> go in that direction also.
>
>
>
> Hence the "Aether" in question could be Quantum fields theory, virtual
> particles, cold neutrinos, dark matter, Dirac sea etc...  or *anything in
> or of space* (or space-time) besides matter and light/radiation.
>
> Therefore there isn't really any reason to discount it based on the label
> Aether as it is being used as a catch all, some of which are beyond doubt.
>
> I would also note that the space of General Relativity is affected by
> matter and light and motion can be induced in it, such as frame dragging.
>
>
>
> And also I will be first addressing that light might potentially affect
> such phenomena.
>
>
>
> So we know that the electric field from the Nucleus of a Hydrogen Nucleus
> can polarize the virtual particles and cause partial shielding, this
> results in the Lamb shift.
>
> Also displacement current through a vacuum and the very
> dielectric properties of the vacuum suggest there is something to be
> affected.
>
> Many have entertained the ideas of Bearden and Scalar waves which propose
> to affect space with electromagnetic fields interfering.
>
> Matter is 99.9% empty space and so if matter has any potential ability
> to affect anything in the vacuum likely that would be from the 99.9% of
> the volume that is just electromagnetic flux, also if Matter plays a
> necessary part, as long as the experiment is not performed in a vacuum
> matter will be present even if it isn't the structured component.
>
> Light manifests a tiny gravitational field according to conventional
> theory, indeed it must due to the fact it carries momentum and can be
> diverted by gravity if Newlon's laws are to survive..
>
> Light introduced into an otherwise massless perfectly reflective box
> would, due to Doppler shift imbalancing radiation pressure, inertial mass
> now be apparent.
>
> Light has the ability to push, warm and cut matter so why should we doubt
> it's influence on other phenomena?
>
>
>
>
>
> So we should all be able to agree on two things:
>
>
>
> There are phenomena in the background of space that certainly DO exist
> that aren't matter or light.   See also
> 

RE: [Vo]:Arguments for an "Aether"--added comment

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Since gravity waves IN SPACE AND LIGHT WAVES HAVE THE SAME SPEED ,  SUGGESTS 
GRAVITY IS REALY THE RESULT OF QUANTUM MAGMNETIC DIPOLES  THAT GET REARRANGED 
DURINGULAR MOMENTUM.

BOB COOK

-

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 3:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Arguments for an "Aether"

Electric permittivity and magnetic megmiabilityu of space necessary to 
calculate the speed of light support the physical model of space and hence the 
concept of an anther.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows

From: Jonathan Berry
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 12:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Arguments for an "Aether"

Well if you consider all of the possible interactions that could happen with 
so-called virtual particles (whatever quantum field theory might call them) it 
calculates the exact value and is the "most successful calculation/prediction 
in physics".  I can't judge the relative value of the model you mention but I 
would argue that even if it somehow explains away for example Lamb shift, how 
would other phenomena that give evidence of a substantive and energetic nature 
to space be discounted?

For example the Casimir effect, are you saying this isn't a result of 
eliminating certian frequency modes in the Quantum field?

And the permitivity of free space and displscement current in a vacuum, are you 
saying there is nothing in the vacuum to be displaced? (polarized)

There is a lot more than just Lamb shift that nerds to be explained away.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022, 1:23 am Jürg Wyttenbach, 
mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>> wrote:

So we know that the electric field from the Nucleus of a Hydrogen Nucleus can 
polarize the virtual particles and cause partial shielding, this results in the 
Lamb shift.

This is standard model word salad. Virtual particles  are just a mathematical 
construct an thus never something real.



Lamb shift only happens inside a field so this is a forced interaction. We can 
exactly calculate the Proton fine structure frequency (See basics in Mills but 
needs some metric added..) from first principle and there we use no virtual 
particles.

All non circular orbits have two extremes what explains the shift in min/max 
energy.

Hence no ether or other fantasy needed.

J.W.


On 11.10.2022 11:01, Jonathan Berry wrote:
I would like to hear any counter points to these arguments.

Firstly the Aether I am talking about IS NOT NECESSARILY the Luminiferous 
Aether/Ether considered disproven, though some arguments will go in that 
direction also.

Hence the "Aether" in question could be Quantum fields theory, virtual 
particles, cold neutrinos, dark matter, Dirac sea etc...  or anything in or of 
space (or space-time) besides matter and light/radiation.
Therefore there isn't really any reason to discount it based on the label 
Aether as it is being used as a catch all, some of which are beyond doubt.
I would also note that the space of General Relativity is affected by matter 
and light and motion can be induced in it, such as frame dragging.

And also I will be first addressing that light might potentially affect such 
phenomena.

So we know that the electric field from the Nucleus of a Hydrogen Nucleus can 
polarize the virtual particles and cause partial shielding, this results in the 
Lamb shift.
Also displacement current through a vacuum and the very dielectric properties 
of the vacuum suggest there is something to be affected.
Many have entertained the ideas of Bearden and Scalar waves which propose to 
affect space with electromagnetic fields interfering.
Matter is 99.9% empty space and so if matter has any potential ability to 
affect anything in the vacuum likely that would be from the 99.9% of the 
volume that is just electromagnetic flux, also if Matter plays a necessary 
part, as long as the experiment is not performed in a vacuum matter will be 
present even if it isn't the structured component.
Light manifests a tiny gravitational field according to conventional theory, 
indeed it must due to the fact it carries momentum and can be diverted by 
gravity if Newlon's laws are to survive..
Light introduced into an otherwise massless perfectly reflective box would, due 
to Doppler shift imbalancing radiation pressure, inertial mass now be apparent.
Light has the ability to push, warm and cut matter so why should we doubt it's 
influence on other phenomena?


So we should all be able to agree on two things:

There are phenomena in the background of space that certainly DO exist that 
aren't matter or light.   See also 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kCtiOS_F_M=7s
And Light (EM) could conceivably influence said phenomena.

So first a little consideration to a Lumiferious Aether.   It is known that the 
speed of light is C, but 

RE: [Vo]:Arguments for an "Aether"

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Electric permittivity and magnetic megmiabilityu of space necessary to 
calculate the speed of light support the physical model of space and hence the 
concept of an anther.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows

From: Jonathan Berry
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 12:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Arguments for an "Aether"

Well if you consider all of the possible interactions that could happen with 
so-called virtual particles (whatever quantum field theory might call them) it 
calculates the exact value and is the "most successful calculation/prediction 
in physics".  I can't judge the relative value of the model you mention but I 
would argue that even if it somehow explains away for example Lamb shift, how 
would other phenomena that give evidence of a substantive and energetic nature 
to space be discounted?

For example the Casimir effect, are you saying this isn't a result of 
eliminating certian frequency modes in the Quantum field?

And the permitivity of free space and displscement current in a vacuum, are you 
saying there is nothing in the vacuum to be displaced? (polarized)

There is a lot more than just Lamb shift that nerds to be explained away.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022, 1:23 am Jürg Wyttenbach, 
mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>> wrote:

So we know that the electric field from the Nucleus of a Hydrogen Nucleus can 
polarize the virtual particles and cause partial shielding, this results in the 
Lamb shift.

This is standard model word salad. Virtual particles  are just a mathematical 
construct an thus never something real.



Lamb shift only happens inside a field so this is a forced interaction. We can 
exactly calculate the Proton fine structure frequency (See basics in Mills but 
needs some metric added..) from first principle and there we use no virtual 
particles.

All non circular orbits have two extremes what explains the shift in min/max 
energy.

Hence no ether or other fantasy needed.

J.W.


On 11.10.2022 11:01, Jonathan Berry wrote:
I would like to hear any counter points to these arguments.

Firstly the Aether I am talking about IS NOT NECESSARILY the Luminiferous 
Aether/Ether considered disproven, though some arguments will go in that 
direction also.

Hence the "Aether" in question could be Quantum fields theory, virtual 
particles, cold neutrinos, dark matter, Dirac sea etc...  or anything in or of 
space (or space-time) besides matter and light/radiation.
Therefore there isn't really any reason to discount it based on the label 
Aether as it is being used as a catch all, some of which are beyond doubt.
I would also note that the space of General Relativity is affected by matter 
and light and motion can be induced in it, such as frame dragging.

And also I will be first addressing that light might potentially affect such 
phenomena.

So we know that the electric field from the Nucleus of a Hydrogen Nucleus can 
polarize the virtual particles and cause partial shielding, this results in the 
Lamb shift.
Also displacement current through a vacuum and the very dielectric properties 
of the vacuum suggest there is something to be affected.
Many have entertained the ideas of Bearden and Scalar waves which propose to 
affect space with electromagnetic fields interfering.
Matter is 99.9% empty space and so if matter has any potential ability to 
affect anything in the vacuum likely that would be from the 99.9% of the 
volume that is just electromagnetic flux, also if Matter plays a necessary 
part, as long as the experiment is not performed in a vacuum matter will be 
present even if it isn't the structured component.
Light manifests a tiny gravitational field according to conventional theory, 
indeed it must due to the fact it carries momentum and can be diverted by 
gravity if Newlon's laws are to survive..
Light introduced into an otherwise massless perfectly reflective box would, due 
to Doppler shift imbalancing radiation pressure, inertial mass now be apparent.
Light has the ability to push, warm and cut matter so why should we doubt it's 
influence on other phenomena?


So we should all be able to agree on two things:

There are phenomena in the background of space that certainly DO exist that 
aren't matter or light.   See also 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kCtiOS_F_M=7s
And Light (EM) could conceivably influence said phenomena.

So first a little consideration to a Lumiferious Aether.   It is known that the 
speed of light is C, but those who dig a little deeper recognize that the claim 
is only related to the 2 way speed of light, the round trip.   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k
The thing is Lorentz contraction (Lorentz Aether Theory, LET) was only 
conceived of as a means to make the round trip constant and it made no pretense 
that it could keep the one way speed of light constant.
Well, the thing is Special Relativity has 

Re: [Vo]:Johann Wilhelm Ritter (1776-1810)

[H LV]

Two more books about Ritter and Goethe were published recently, but they
are both in German.
1) Goethe, Ritter und die Polarität : Geschichte und Kontroversen. 2021
(Goethe, Ritter and the Polarity: History and Controversies)
2) Ultraviolett - Johann Wilhelm Ritters Werk und Goethes Beitrag - zur
Geschichte einer Kooperation. 2021
(Ultraviolet - Johann Wilhelm Ritter's Work und Goethe's contribution - On
the History of a Cooperation)
Based on a google translation of a section of book (1) that was free
online, it seems Ritter followed up his photochemical discovery of
ultraviolet light with a photochemical investigation of infrared light but
his latter observations were dismissed at the time as erroneous. Based on
the principle of polarity he predicted infrared light would tend to lighten
silver oxide paper in contrast with UV light which darkened the silver
oxide paper. Since he predicted the paper would become lighter he started
with partially exposed gray paper instead of unexposed white paper and he
observed that IR light did lighten the gray paper. This experiment was just
recently redone after more than 200 hundred years and it appears his
observations were correct. Why this happens is not yet known.

Harry

On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 10:52 AM H LV  wrote:

>
> I am going to the library today to get this book through an interlibrary
> loan. (At over $200 it is too pricey to buy):
>
> _Key Texts of Johann Wilhelm Ritter (1776-1810) on the Science and Art of
> Nature_
>
> It is a translation of J. W. Ritter's work. I just learned about Ritter
> last month while reading about Goethe. He died poor and young at 33. Ritter
> is credited with the discovery of ultraviolet radiation about a year after
> Herschel discovered infrared radiation. (Goethe suggested to Ritter that he
> look for something beyond the violet.)
>
> I am looking forward to reading Ritter's essay: Physics as Art.
>
> Like many scientists (i.e. natural philosophers ) of his time he was
> interested in electricity, galvanism and batteries. Apparently he performed
> electrical tests on himself to learn about the electrical nature of the
> nervous system. Some speculate the self-experimentation may have
> contributed to his early death.
>
> Jocelyn Holland (who translated Ritter's work from german to english) says
> of him:
> Ritter writes that only through the presence of the observer can painting
> become a complete embodiment of the artistic act. The observed act of
> artistic creation in the medium of painting “summons” the observer to
> “complete [the embodiment]” and “proclaims to him the beginning of a new
> individual activity.”
>
> Wikipedia page on Ritter:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Wilhelm_Ritter
>
> Harry
>