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

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

On 19.10.2022 11:57, Jonathan Berry wrote:
Like the other video it also uses Feynman diagrams, it doesn't 
directly mention the Lamb shift but it states that strength of 
electromagnetic fields is again related to all the possible outcomes 
with Feynman diagrams.



This - Feynman diagrams - are outraging nonsense for describing particle 
- particle interactions. The error is based on the Dirac equation, that 
cannot describe particle - particle interactions as there is a primitive 
(mathematical) mismatch between Energy and wave function. The mass of a 
particle cannot act wave like . "point end".


Just to remind everybody once more about the biggest organized science 
fraud also called the (Feynman diagram based) electron g-factor project.


J.W.

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

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

[Jonathan Berry]

And I should add this video too, about the Fine structure constant 1/137.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCSSgxV9qNw

Like the other video it also uses Feynman diagrams, it doesn't directly
mention the Lamb shift but it states that strength of electromagnetic
fields is again related to all the possible outcomes with Feynman diagrams.

That means that the strength of the electromagnetic force in a Vacuum IS
(or is somehow perfectly and impossibly coincidental with) the polarization
of virtual particles in space.

In other words this is a confirmation beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
permittivity of space, the ability of it to carry an electrical field is a
result of it's substantive nature, of the polarization of virtual particles
and the resultant fields (displacement current).

Quantum field theory turns the particle into waves but there is still the
same phenomena just looked at differently and actually it creates multiple
aethers for every particle.
Note that we do know virtual particles can become real particles by moving
a mirror:

*"By changing the position of a mirror inside a vacuum, virtual particles
can be transformed into real photons that can be experimentally observed.
In a vacuum, there is energy and noise, the existence of which follows the
uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics." *

So virtual particles are real however you want to think of them, they form
a type of aether.

The Casimir effect is real.

The substantiveness of the vacuum is real, experimentally verified frame
dragging confirms it, everything does.

And again, Special Relativity has no mechanism to make the speed of light C
in all frames and so it cannot possibly be, there is no mechanism proposed
to do so.


On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 at 09:38, Jonathan Berry 
wrote:

> To clarify what I am talking about regarding virtual particles being
> polarized in space, and it giving the best prediction in Science and the
> lamb shift for those who haven't here is a good video from Veritasium.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g20JZ2HNZaw
>
>
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 at 02:39, Chris Zell  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for bringing this up.  I always wondered how aether isn’t
>> supposedly real yet space/vacuum has measurable properties concerning EMF.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe someday a discussion of lightning/thunderstorms will pop up as I
>> find nothing credible about cloud electrification ideas.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2022 6:24 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
>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C721c9a2f8cc747bc92a208dab08e48e2%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C638016422431994269%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=V4CtpJadrYF0P5LujylOqmG%2BFbgVJswobXvNgbVTk%2Bk%3D=0>
>> 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 shieldi

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

[Jonathan Berry]

To clarify what I am talking about regarding virtual particles being
polarized in space, and it giving the best prediction in Science and the
lamb shift for those who haven't here is a good video from Veritasium.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g20JZ2HNZaw



On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 at 02:39, Chris Zell  wrote:

> Thanks for bringing this up.  I always wondered how aether isn’t
> supposedly real yet space/vacuum has measurable properties concerning EMF.
>
>
>
> Maybe someday a discussion of lightning/thunderstorms will pop up as I
> find nothing credible about cloud electrification ideas.
>
>
>
> *From:* bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2022 6:24 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
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C721c9a2f8cc747bc92a208dab08e48e2%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C638016422431994269%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=V4CtpJadrYF0P5LujylOqmG%2BFbgVJswobXvNgbVTk%2Bk%3D=0>
> 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 

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

[Chris Zell]

Thanks for bringing this up.  I always wondered how aether isn't supposedly 
real yet space/vacuum has measurable properties concerning EMF.

Maybe someday a discussion of lightning/thunderstorms will pop up as I find 
nothing credible about cloud electrification ideas.

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 6:24 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<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C721c9a2f8cc747bc92a208dab08e48e2%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C638016422431994269%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=V4CtpJadrYF0P5LujylOqmG%2BFbgVJswobXvNgbVTk%2Bk%3D=0>
 for Windows

From: Jonathan Berry<mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 12:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto: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

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 <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> 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 

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<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 3:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto: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<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows

From: Jonathan Berry<mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 12:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto: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 consid

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<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows

From: Jonathan Berry<mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 12:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto: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 lig

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

[Jonathan Berry]

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
> 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 absolutely no mechanism that can
> make the one way speed of light constant!  It just argues that you cannot
> measure the one way speed of light so live with it.
> It plays a game of "if you can't easily measure the difference it doesn't
> exist, but this is impossible, it is a cheat and it is a cop-out.
>
> However, because there is no possible, no conceivable 

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

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

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 absolutely no mechanism that 
can make the one way speed of light constant! It just argues that you 
cannot measure the one way speed of light so live with it.
It plays a game of "if you can't easily measure the difference it 
doesn't exist, but this is impossible, it is a cheat and it is a cop-out.


However, because there is no possible, no conceivable mechanism by 
which the one-way speed of light can ACTUALLY be C in all directions 
in all frames, then we must accept that it is in fact NOT equal in all 
frames even if we have difficulty proving what it is or finding said 
frame.


So as the speed of light is actually dependent on the frame you are 
in, we can also put aside all the other impossibilities of Special 
Relativity, we can now consider that time dilation is an absolute 
thing and this is good as there are easy ways to create impossible 
paradoxes.


Anyway if you want to, you can actually measure the one-way speed of 
light.   What you need to do is Synchronize 2 or more clocks when they 
are together, now if you can establish the direction of your motion 
through the prefered frame that is great as moving each