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
> 
> 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 

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
 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