[oldsalt]

Mr. Speicher:

Do you believe that the universe is a plenum? I do, on philosophical grounds, but I'm curious what science has to say on the matter (if you'll pardon the pun).

Wouldn't the lack of a plenum imply that there is "nothing?" In philosophy classes, I've heard this question discussed in paradoxical ways (al la Zeno's infinity, etc.), but I've never heard anything contra a plenum that made any sense whatsoever. Usually, there are vague references to "the void" and to an absolute vacuum, which I inferred to mean nothingness.

[dondigitalia]

Mr. Speicher (and others) has already discussed this subject at great length. You can find it here.

[oldsalt]

Thank you for the referal.

[stephen_speicher]

oldsalt, on May 7 2004, 01:10 PM, said:

Do you believe that the universe is a plenum?  I do, on philosophical grounds, but I'm curious what science has to say on the matter (if you'll pardon the pun). 

The sheer existence of a plenum is a philosophical matter, which science should take as a starting point. The job of science, then, is to determine exactly what the plenum is.

[John S Bolton]

Plenum or no: If it means that there could be an absolute void somewhere; that would be a contradiction. Yet current physics speaks of quintessence, dark matter, dark energy and other accounts, as if all of space were filled up. Perhaps in physics today there is little belief in the possibility of an absolute void. The exact nature of the ether of space is not known. One could assume that its existence contradicts the theory of the hubble expansion. This leaves the alternative account of everything here getting a little smaller, including the meter that is used. To expand into nothing, is to move into a location which would be the location of nothing (and thus not a meaningful location). An approprate starting point for inquiries might involve such ideas as the above; but especially that there is no non-existence creating or occupying space. If it could, that would be some kind of existence. But what are the implications of these premises; do they rule out a large part of twentieth century physics?

[stephen_speicher]

John S Bolton, on May 19 2004, 01:58 AM, said:

But what are the implications of these premises; do they rule out a large part of twentieth century physics?

The vacuum of classical physics is different from the vacuum of general relativity, which again is different from the vaccum of relativistic quantum field theory, and this is different again from the superstring vacuum, etc. The point being that for all the standard theories there is no unifying principle which deals with the vacuum in a comprehensive and noncontradictory way. The standard theories work well in the domains where they are applicable, and each has its own scientific perspective on the nature of the vacuum. It is not that a "large part of twentieth century physics" is ruled out, but rather that the standard theories are not integrated into a cohesive whole.

Incidentally, what do you mean by this?

Quote

This leaves the alternative account of everything here getting a little smaller, including the meter that is used.

[John S Bolton]

I would assume from your statement that philosophy, not being given a coherent account of the vacuum which current theories are clustering around; may well have little to say about it. What I mean by 'getting smaller' is that , if the universal expansion is disbelieved, then the only alternative view that I know of, is the one which states that even our measuring equipment is becoming more compact, and in just such degree as to explain the data, which is otherwise said to imply cosmic expansion. One class of matter is under pressure from another, namely: the ether of space. Gravity causes things to get more densely packed, and the more so, the more closely they lie towards the center of a gravitational field. Yet they are getting denser, relative to the ether, but not in relation to the vacuum, which, on this theory, is denied. On this account, the ether does have determinate attributes; they are measured as gravity.

[stephen_speicher]

John S Bolton, on May 20 2004, 12:42 AM, said:

I would assume from your statement that philosophy, not being given a coherent account of the vacuum which current theories are clustering around; may well have little to say about it.

Because your wording is a bit peculiar I am not positive of what you are saying. But, as I mentioned previously, philosophy simply tells us that existence is a plenum, and it leaves the description of the plenum's detailed nature for science to discover.

Quote

What I mean by 'getting smaller' is that , if the universal expansion is disbelieved, then the only alternative view that I know of, is the one which states that even our measuring equipment is becoming more compact, and in just such degree as to explain the data, which is otherwise said to imply cosmic expansion.

That seems like a rather arbitrary and bizarre notion. Why and how would "our measuring equipment [become] more compact," and why would such a process affect only our equipment and not the rest of existence?

Quote

One class of matter is under pressure from another, namely: the ether of space. Gravity causes things to get more densely packed, and the more so, the more closely they lie towards the center of a gravitational field. Yet they are getting denser, relative to the ether, but not in relation to the vacuum, which, on this theory, is denied. On this account, the ether does have determinate attributes; they are measured as gravity.

I'm sorry, but this seems hopelssly confused. I cannot untangle any real meaning from this. Perhaps if you first start by telling me your conception of the ether, and what you think gravity is, then perhaps we may be able to return to what you intend here.

[John S Bolton]

The claim is not that only our measuring instruments are under this pressure of compression which would make them a little smaller in a unit of time, but that all matter ( except the ether) is compacting in this way. The ether, on this theory, is also matter, but it is buoyant in space, while the familiar matter sinks toward the center of a gravitational field. Gravity is the pressure of the ether on the remaining kinds of matter, on this account. Why should one class of matter be so different that its motion would exert net pressure on another? My speculation is that the ether of space moves without friction, and this is its distinct nature and way of exerting compression on our well-known matter which is driven to the centers of its own accumulations (stars,planets, etc.). The matter which is not ether of space, is frictional in the geometry of its basic structure, and such that the non-frictional matter (the ether) causes it to clump into spherical aggregations, and this process is gravity also.

[John S Bolton]

One addition: Sometimes matter is driven to an excessively dense configuration, and such that an explosion ensues. This allows for an endless cycling of the known matter; out into space after an explosion, then back into dense concentrations under the pressure of gravity.

[stephen_speicher]

John S Bolton, on May 21 2004, 12:05 AM, said:

The claim is not that only our measuring instruments are under this pressure of compression which would make them a little smaller in a unit of time, but that all matter ( except the ether) is compacting in this way.

And how exactly does this "pressure of compression" come about? And, why just compression? Why not tension and torsion? What are these forces, what are their source, and how do they act?

Quote

The ether, on this theory, is also matter, but it is buoyant in space, while the familiar matter sinks toward the center of a gravitational field.

So there is ordinary matter, and ether-like matter, and space? What is this "space" that the ether is buoyant in? And, do you really think that matter "sinks towards the center of a gravitational field?" Do you realize that in the real world gravitational fields are non-uniform, and the many-body interactions of a solar system are responsible for orbital variations?

Quote

Gravity is the pressure of the ether on the remaining kinds of matter, on this account.

Huh? Are you aware of how gravity acts in the real world? How does this "pressure on the ether" account for a nonuniform gravitational field? How does it explain the gravitational deflection of a light ray as it grazes the Sun? How does it explain the anomalous advance in the perihelion of the planet Mercury? What is it about this "pressure on the ether" that requires the Global Positioning System to account for nonuniform gravitational effects on the orbiting atomic clocks?

Quote

The matter which is not ether of space, is frictional in the geometry of its basic structure, and such that the non-frictional matter (the ether) causes it to clump into spherical aggregations, and this process is gravity also.

Okay, I see now. You're just putting me on. You are pulling my leg till it hurts. You win. It hurts. You got me.

[John S Bolton]

These speculations are given in order to suggest alternative accounts, which might turn out to be more rational than the 20th century physics, or that part of it which is continually cited in support of the most outlandish mysticism. The bending of light rays, as they pass close by the sun, might be explained also as waves showing the deflection of their ray-normals in the gravitational field extending out from the sun. That is; if light is all waves, and not particles at all, it is perhaps not problematical for waves to suffer deflection in such a field. Tension and torsion could be secondary effects arising from the basic force of compression on frictional matter. The source of the differential force is stated to be the non-frictional ether being thus able to carry vibrations further, while the frictional matter gathers like froth at the center of the surface of a liquid, which is being agitated in a container. The ether would be buoyant in the plenum, and capable of penetrating all matter, since it would be continous, while all other matter is granular. Frictional matter is like grit in the gears of the ether, and so much so that, an aggregation of this matter in the ether, pushes one such spheroid towards a neighboring one. The ether could carry vibrations more efficiently, if there were nothing else around, therefore superior force impinges on the sides where it hits a spheroid from clear space, in comparison to what may propagate in the belt of ether between two spheroids, which are close together. The system would be eternal, if the source of energy for setting the ether into vibration, is also the explosions caused by frictional and granular matter, being compressed beyond its natural limits.

[stephen_speicher]

John S Bolton, on May 22 2004, 12:21 AM, said:

These speculations are given in order to suggest alternative accounts, which might turn out to be more rational than the 20th century physics ...

John, I really love to talk about physics -- especially foundational issues where physics meets philosophy -- but the things you say are so disconnected from reality that they are not even wrong. Before you attempt to replace what you consider to be the irrationality of modern-day physics you might want to first learn the physical facts upon which that physics is based.

[oldsalt]

Please forgive my tardiness in thanking you for your answer. I do understand the relaionship between philosophy and science. I guess my question wasn't very clear. I'll try again.

Do the scientific theories of physics operate on the premise that the universe is a plenum? (That still sounds like a sloppy construction to me. I hope you can decipher it.) From what you said in answer to Bolton, that there is no coherent, unifying theory, I infer that the answer is no. Correct?

[stephen_speicher]

oldsalt, on May 22 2004, 02:26 PM, said:

Do the scientific theories of physics operate on the premise that the universe is a plenum? 

Some do, some don't. For those that do, some do so implicitly, some explicitly.

As you yourself observed, there is an absence of a truly unifying standard theory. That fact alone permits some leeway which would, of necessity, disappear, if the theories were integrated into a cohesive whole.

[John S Bolton]

Replying to S. Speicher: I realize that I have been dismissed, and I accept that. Yet I don't think you should say "disconnected from reality", when I have given what I consider to be perfectly sensible speculations, aimed at rationality. They may not have been stated with utmost clarity. I would rather you say that you think I am speculating on the basis of ignorance, and you have no further time for it. I thank you for your time and consideration.

[stephen_speicher]

John S Bolton, on May 22 2004, 11:03 PM, said:

Yet I don't think you should say "disconnected from reality", when I have given what I consider to be perfectly sensible speculations, aimed at rationality.

John, I would be delighted to have you prove my assessment wrong.

Let me make clear what I mean by "disconnected from reality." To connect an idea to reality you must reduce it to the logical thoughts and physical facts upon which the idea depends. In addition, you ultimately need to integrate your idea with everything else known. A hallmark of an arbitrary idea is the inability to connect it to antecedent logical thoughts and physical facts, as well as the impossibility of integrating the idea with what is known.

As an example, let's take the gravitational deflection of light. It is an experimental fact that light deflects in a gravitational field. Classical theories (Newtonian, etc.) can only account for 1/2 of the observed deflection. Other theories, including Einstein's general relativity, can account for the entire amount of observed deflection. Note that -- and this is relevant to your assertions -- experimental observations related to the Sun have shown that, just as predicted by general relativity, light which comes from any direction will be deflected by the Sun, the amount of deflection depending on the angle from the Sun.

Now, suppose I come along and say that modern physics is irrational, and I have a much better theory -- the Demon Ether Theory (DET) -- to explain this experimentally confirmed gravitational deflection of light. My theory is that space is filled with little light demons, each demon mischieviously moving light around by little puffs of breath. And, these demons are strategically placed such that the strength of their puffs is a function of their angle and distance from the Sun, thereby explaining the observed effects. I offer my DET as an "alternative account[s], which might turn out to be more rational than the 20th century physics."

I hope that you can see that DET is a rather arbitrary speculation on my part, a theory which is disconnected from reality. Afterall, what possible logical thoughts or physical facts could I appeal to to make sensible the existence of these demons, and what thoughts or facts would connect with the relative force of their breath depending on their position from the Sun? Also, how could I possibly integrate my DET with anything else which is known? How can the demon distribution for the Sun integrate with a million other experimental facts about gravity which would require a much different distribution of demons to explain these other observations?

My point to you was that, being a person knowledgeable in both philosophy and physics, I assess your speculations as being just as arbitrary, just as disconnected from reality, as my Demon Ether Theory. But, as I said at the beginning, I would be delighted to be proved wrong. Perhaps I misunderstood what you offered, or simply missed a few points. Please take the experimental facts of the gravitational deflection of light, and show me, specifically, how your speculations explain the facts, not by reference to the demons which I invented, but by reference to ideas connected to reality.

[John S Bolton]

The Newtonian theory may only be able to account for half the observed deflection of light waves, in the stronger gravitational fields, because it assumes a void. When the plenum is credited, we have matter filling the entire path of the deflected light ray. The ray curves towards the area closer to the sun, which is shielded from the long reach and build-up of the vibrations in the plenum, by the mass of the sun, which absorbs or reflects these( or such is the speculation, as, for example with the theory of C. Colden). The ray-normal crosses into a denser shadow of the sun; shaded from the superior force of the vibrations crossing the plenum unobstructed. As previously suggested, the ether might, through being continous and non-frictional (non-granular), be so much more efficient at transmitting vibrational energy, that the area closer to the sun is shielded from this, and the ray-normal turns sunward, rather as waves turn in around a headland, and in such degree as to always face the shore. There is, then, net pressure on the side facing clear space relative to the side facing the sun. The closer to a larger aggregation of frictional matter, the ray approaches, the greater this shielding effect will become. I am supposing that Newton's theory is applied assuming light waves in a vacuum; but here we are positing a plenum. Presumably additional deflection is expected in this case. Further, I assume that all light rays will spread out, given sufficient space, and that this may contradict the classification of light rays as (absolutely) transverse. For compression vibrations to turn readily is not such a conundrum, as it would be for the absolutely transverse radiation, which, in principle, cannot reduce to longitudinal vibration, regardless of how it is subdivided or allowed to extend.

[John S Bolton]

Regarding general relativity: is it incorrect to say that the ether was discredited by Einstein at one point, and then brought back by him with what he called ether theory (in German), but which is called general relativity today? Would the reason for this turn of events, have been that the earlier theory, assuming a void , did not explain the additional light deflection mentioned above, because it assumed a void? The general relativity theory is not generally accepted, yet the experimental results (or light-deflection observations) are verification of some ether theory, or not? I do not claim that they prove what I say; but it has been suggested that they are incompatible with my speculations.

[stephen_speicher]

John S Bolton, on May 23 2004, 10:12 PM, said:

Quote

Please take the experimental facts of the gravitational deflection of light, and show me, specifically, how your speculations explain the facts, not by reference to the demons which I invented, but by reference to ideas connected to reality.

The Newtonian theory may only ...

This is all nonsense, John, no better than my Demon theory. You failed to connect a single idea, in any meaningful way, to any experimental fact of reality, much less integrate it with what is known.