I never had a problem with that Georges - and all the best. I have never been other than a cook book scientist, and was only better than some because I could read the page numbers and worry about the numbers a few experiments and equations threw up. My "field" now has people in it who double pig production in Bulgaria in 1918, failing to note there had been a calendar change and the 'extra pigs' were merely awaiting Xmas execution. I have no quibbles with your definition of vacuum other than in practical situations where other approximations serve better in making a cake rise (etc). The point is whether other explorations are possible, as I suggest they are through reasonable thought even where great minds have produced theory such as SR which has had great empirical confirmation. Thinking about measuring the one way speed of light in vacuum is one such example.
On 31 Dec 2009, 17:44, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > Where is hidden Vacuum? > I said and repeat: > But in your head. Just have a look. > > Especially when one talks through the back of his neck about what > he ignores. That was aimed at Socratus, having unusually empty head. > > But you endeavor to talk science. Kitchen almanac science, but > still sort of science, so I shall answer scientifically. > > Cosmos has been reduced to the Phenomenal Equivalence of field and > SPACE. SPACE is no more an abstract "container" containing "objects" > or nothing i.e. "vacuum". > > SPACE/field polarity is the fabric of cosmos. There is no "empty" > SPACE without the field counterpart et vice versa. SPACE curvature > is equivalent to field density. Nearly flat SPACE corresponds to very > weak field and for practical approximations is considered as "vacuum". > But SPACE/field polarity is always there, however flat and weak. > > Cheers > Georges. > ============== > > --- On Thu, 12/31/09, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > From: archytas <[email protected]> > > Subject: [epistemology 11136] Re: Where is hidden Vacuum? > > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > > Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 5:14 PM > > Careful Georges, I sense an > > implosion! And who will end up doing the > > hoovering? Explorations of the one way speed of light > > and Zeno of > > Elia grinding us down to no motion at all might hit some of > > the > > epistemological considerations of what a vacuum might > > be other than > > as operationally defined. Have we really defined the > > electron yet? > > Even in the chemistry I practiced (bring slower-witted and > > of duller > > temperament than the physicists), one could consider proton > > exchange > > as validly in terms of results as all that electron > > exchange mularky. > > One knows what a vacuum is at the bench - you create it > > from the > > vacuum taps as a handy way of getting gases out of the > > way. > > Considering what is 'still in there' is an irrelevance > > until we wonder > > what it might be doing other than as a space without much > > air for the > > destructive distillation of coal (or whatever). > > How, given SR, can we measure the one way speed of light in > > vacuum, > > and what might this consideration tell us of what is rather > > easily > > postulated in SR? This work has been done at some > > length. There > > might be some interest here on how we form the questions on > > language > > trapping what directions we might take. > > > On 25 Dec, 15:53, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Where is hidden Vacuum? > > > But in your head. Just have a look. > > > Georges. > > > > --- On Fri, 12/25/09, socratus <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > From: socratus <[email protected]> > > > > Subject: [epistemology 11117] Re: Where is hidden > > Vacuum? > > > > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > > > > Date: Friday, December 25, 2009, 3:49 PM > > > > " The problem of the exact > > > > description of vacuum, in my opinion, > > > > is the basic problem now before physics. > > Really, if you > > > > can’t > > > > correctly > > > > describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect > > a > > > > correct > > > > description > > > > of something more complex? " > > > > / Paul Dirac ./ > > > > ===================== . > > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are > > subscribed to the > > > > Google Groups "Epistemology" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]. > > > > For more options, visit this group > > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > Google Groups "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
