OK, so your "ether" is Brahman-Atman. Why didn't you just tell us you were Hindu and be done with it?
And do please stop with your Ethernet nonsense already! It's just plain embarassing!
"Ethernet" is just a name that they chose at Xerox PARC for their implementation of the Data Link Layer of the OSI model of computer networking.
"Ethernet" is just a name which does not actually tie it to any actual ether! Just like the various "DNA" software products do not actually involve any literal deoxyribonucleic acid. Nor does the Java programming language actually incorporate any coffee (despite the fact of the magic cookie header of a compiled Java bytecode file spelling out "CAFE BABE" in a hex dump) -- they wanted to name their new language "Oak" after the tree in front of their office, but that name was already taken by another software project that, surprisingly, didn't involve any actual literal tree nor lumber.
The history of Ethernet shows that it was named after a very common slang phrase for radio transmission (eg, "Sending the broadcast out over the ether", "the ether was buzzing with message traffic"):
quote:The idea [for Ethernet] was first documented in a memo that Metcalfe wrote on May 22, 1973, where he named it after the luminiferous aether once postulated to exist as an "omnipresent, completely-passive medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves."
One technique ether net has used involves physically twisting fibers within a transmission wire. -it seems at least possible that could stimulate such interactions between the ether and the quantum units.
So then you also don't know anything about electricity? More specifically, basic electro-magnetics which used to be taught as early as in elementary school:
When a electrical current runs through a wire, it generates a magnetic field around that wire in accordance with the right-hand rule (for engineers using conventional current; technicians using actual electron current use the left hand).
When a wire moves through a magnetic field, then it induces a current in that wire. This is the basis for electric generators. Of course, for such applications the wire is wrapped up into a coil to concentrate the effect.
Please keep in mind that that motion is relative. Moving a wire through a stationary magnetic field has the same inductive effect as moving a magnetic field through a stationary wire.
As a signal is carried through that wire, that causes the current to fluctuate which in turn causes the magnetic field to fluctuate accordingly. As that fluctuating magnetic field passes through an adjacent stationary wire, it induces a current in that adjacent wire. Thus the signal in the first wire gets injected, albeit imperfectly, into the second wire resulting in cross-talk.
Cross-talk is normally a bad thing in communications systems and needs to be eliminated or at least minimized as much as possible.
This is basically the same effect as is used by radio antennae in which the radio-frequency EM signal induces a current signal in the antenna which the rest of the radio receiver processes. The antenna's physical and electrical properties need to be compatible with the desired signal's wave form such that if the antenna is too mismatched to receiving the signal then it will perform very poorly.
The common technique that every electrical and electronics technician knows for reducing cross-talk is to use twisted-pair cables. Basically, that reduces the length of any part of the "receiving" wire so as to mismatch it to the frequency of the signal.
Indeed, this technique is so well known and so old that it was invented by Alexander Graham Bell.
It's just basic electro-magnetism. Nothing mystical about it.
quote:Twisted pair cabling is a type of wiring in which two conductors of a single circuit are twisted together for the purposes of improving electromagnetic compatibility. Compared to a single conductor or an untwisted balanced pair, a twisted pair reduces electromagnetic radiation from the pair and crosstalk between neighboring pairs and improves rejection of external electromagnetic interference. It was invented by Alexander Graham Bell.
For additional noise immunity, twisted-pair cabling may be shielded. Cable with shielding is known as shielded twisted pair (STP) and without as unshielded twisted pair (UTP).
You keep reminding me of another MD, Michael Denton from Australia. He was so impressed with his own brilliance that he wrote an entire book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), to refute evolution.
What he learned from publishing that book was how very ignorant he was about evolution.
Yes, that was covered in the History section of the "Twisted pair" article, which linked my to Transposition (telecommunications) which explains it more fully.
The earliest telephones used telegraph lines which were single-wire earth return circuits. In the 1880s electric trams were installed in many cities, which induced noise into these circuits. In some countries, the tram companies were held responsible for disruption to existing telegraph lines and had to pay for remedial work. For new installations, however, it was necessary to protect against existing trams from the outset. Interference on telephone lines is even more disruptive than it is on telegraph lines. Telephone companies converted to balanced circuits, which had the incidental benefit of reducing attenuation, hence increasing range.
As electrical power distribution became more commonplace, this measure proved inadequate. Two wires, strung on either side of cross bars on utility poles, shared the route with electrical power lines. Within a few years, the growing use of electricity again brought an increase of interference, so engineers devised a method called wire transposition, to cancel out the interference.
In wire transposition, the wires exchange position once every several poles. In this way, the two wires would receive similar EMI from power lines. This represented an early implementation of twisting, with a twist rate of about four twists per kilometre, or six per mile. Such open-wire balanced lines with periodic transpositions still survive today in some rural areas.
Twisted-pair cabling was invented by Alexander Graham Bell in 1881. By 1900, the entire American telephone network was either twisted pair or open wire with transposition to guard against interference. Today, most of the millions of kilometres of twisted pairs in the world are outdoor landlines, owned and maintained by telephone companies, used for voice service.
And yet you speak so authoritatively, about something that has never been detected. How is it that you can describe something that cannot and has not ever been detected?
Theologists and fundies and purveyors of woo do it all the time.
My position on the unavoidable impossibility of applying mathematics to the undetectable nature of the kind of ether in my Model, ...
Time to repost this Carl Sagan quote:
quote:The Physicist and the Metaphysicist
In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast. This was a time when people stood up, made a toast, and then selected someone to respond. Nobody knew what toast they'd be asked to reply to, so it was a challenge for the quick-witted. In this case the toast was: "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy -- truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines:
The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.
The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Without evidence and without the ability to test your hypotheses with attempts to disprove it (as we have repeatedly tried to explain to you), you have nothing but a fanciful idea.
Just accept it as a fanciful idea and leave it at that enjoying it for all it could ever hope to be -- I do that with many "explanations" for how the slot in West Coast Swing originated which are great stories but very unlikely to be true (my personal favorite is the one about drunken sailors on liberty).
The basic ideas for the Model were obtained through codebreaking, of sets of codes, putatively enciphered by otherworldly sources. [DWise1: my emphasis added]
OK, so ancient alien astronauts. Say no more, say no more (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
Are you also into Bible codes? That is yet another "field" in which codebreaking and pattern searching are used to find secret prophetic messages in the Hebrew text of the Torah. Interestingly, it also works on translations into Hebrew of such works as Moby Dick and War and Peace.
The posts saying my Ether Model can't be tested have ignored my posts where I mention a possible field test that predicts effects of an ether (not directly demonstrating the ether, but, certain effects having been predicted, would be strong indirect evidence of its existence.
How could we have ever missed that, what with all your hand-waving and word salad constantly obstructing our view? Maybe if you were to write it down clearly and concisely then you might be able to convince somebody.
As I've said, such a test would be expensive, and no sponsor has been found to get it done.
So apply for a grant. What would ever make you think that we would be sources of such funding?
One of the key skills for research scientists is how to write a request for a grant. You obviously lack that skill, so I would recommend that you ally yourself with a research scientist, mostly likely a physicist, who can help you through that process. Of course, you would first have to convince him/her of any promise your ideas have, so yet again you would have to be able to present your ideas clearly and concisely. And show the math! (or at least the basis for the math)
Every path that you must take involves the same basic requirement: a clear and concise and cogent description of your ideas, preferably including some of the required math. Since we have seen no hints of any such description, we can safely assume that it does not exist. Create it! Until you do that, you have nothing.
Failing at that, I'm sure you could find a way to tap into some of that massive dark money swirling around in the Q-niverse. Maybe if you could pitch your experiment as being able to prove that Trump is indeed Jesus Christ.
During the Viet Nam period, I was an MD in the Army.
Did the Army recruit (or draft) you out of medical school, possibly early, and then train you for combat medicine? I don't know whether the US Army did that, though the military's demand for medical skills has always been high such that in the 80's MDs in their 60's and older were getting direct commissions. A similar thing happened to Frederick Banting with the Canadian Army in WWI when they fast-tracked medical students to get them in the field treating the wounded. After the war, Banting continued to practice as a surgeon until he turned his attention to the treatment of glycosuria and earned a Nobel Prize (the youngest laureate ever for Physiology/Medicine at 32) for treating diabetes with insulin.
I'm also reminded of that scene in M*A*S*H where Houlihan asks out loud how such a degenerate could have ever reached a position of responsibility in the US Army Medical Corps, to which the chaplain, "Dago Red", responds, "He was drafted."
Edited by dwise1, : Added "constantly obstructing our view" to my first sentence
And why do the alien astronauts have to be ancient?
Uh, because it's far more easier to explain away the lack of a paper trail before the invention of paper! Nu?
I think he means angels, but what I want to know, do angels have hands at the ends of their wings or are they vertebrates with 6 appendages?
My very first creationist encounter was live. He had a BS biology. He actually tried to claim that wings were sixth appendages instead of modified forelimbs, but then immediately realized his mistake.
That's something that nobody can understand. Therefore God did it! That's the bottom line to everything they do and say. goddidit, goddidit, goddidit, ad infinitum nauseum stupidium.
Akin to what we were taught about Amida Buddhism in comparative religions class (constantly call upon the Amida Buddha with "Namu Amida butsu" and he will save you, sickingly similar to naïve Christianity), just chant "goddidit" constantly.
Doesn't it just make you long for the good old days? When all you needed were two metal rods angling up away from each other so that the electric discharge arc would creep up the ever widening gap.
How do you identify the ether in order to remove it in order to create a possible-density-reducing-scenario where you can identify ether?
It seems to me that you cannot build a "selectively-etheric energy field" without having already identified the ether. Therefore... this cannot be your method for identifying or detecting the ether.
As well, if "removing some ether" from the object (without changing the object's size) actually decreases the density of the object... then the ether has mass. Because that's what density is.
Reminds me of a friend at work, a hardware engineer (ie, EE) who had an interesting and irrefutable theory of how electronics works. All electronics is based on smoke. Every single electronics component contains smoke and that is what makes them work. As proof of this, if you let the smoke escape from a component (eg, resistor, capacitor, IC chip) then it stops working. So the trick in hardware design is to ensure that you keep the smoke inside the components.
Try to disprove that!
Of course, he was joking. But the training NCO of my digital data communications system repair shop on active duty was dead serious when he said that electronics works on "f*cking magic" (FM). And the really amazing stuff works on pure FM (PFM). Just to emphasize, he was very serious: "Nobody knows how electronics works. It's all just f*cking magic."
At the time, I was reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation for the first time. In the first novel the Foundation had been established at the edge of the galaxy as a repository of all the Galactic Empire's knowledge to keep it safe from the total collapse of galactic civilization about to happen -- with it civilization could recover in a few centuries but without it that would take thousands of years.
When the Foundation started exporting its technology, they cloaked it in the form of religion. Their barbaric neighbors would send their sons to be trained by the Foundation and those technician-priests would return to operate and maintain the Foundation machinery. Those technician-priests did not understand the science behind that technology; all they knew that in order to operate this particular device you chant the appropriate prayer and then press the red button and it would work every time. PFM!
When I read that, it explained that NCO's attitude to me and opened my eyes to many similar things. When pocket-sized electronic calculators hit the market in the late 1960's (I saw my first one in 1968, a four-banger that cost about $300), my father said that he knew exactly how it worked: "It has chips!" as if that explained everything -- 7 years later I learned how ICs work by reading ahead in the textbook for my DC theory class. Film and TV routinely ascribed mystical powers to computers, including that incredibly stupid YEC claim about a NASA computer which found "Joshua's Long Day" (that was one of two first YEC claims that I heard in 1970 and which informed me immediately how bogus YEC is -- in the late 80's that story resurfaced in a Sunday newspaper supplement).
Just for fun, here are a few other things that we USAF computer electronics technicians learned (all of them as jokes):
Inverters (1 -> 0 and 0 -> 1) contain a rotating platform such that electrons coming in (represented by a lower-case "e") would get flipped upside-down and exit inverted (represented by a "ə"). Tradition has it that inverter maintenance involves keeping the platform bearings properly lubricated, so you'd order a new technician fresh out of tech school to get you some platform bearing grease ("And be quick about it before this inverter burns out!")
How capacitors work to block DC but pass AC. The symbol for a capacitor is two short vertical parallel lines. Representing a DC level as a straight line, you show that it hits the block wall of the first line in the capacitor symbol and is stopped. But the AC signal (a sine wave) comes along and simply jumps over that wall, thus getting through.
Color electrons. Cathode ray tubes (CRTs) used to be ubiquitous as display devices before flat screens replaced them recently; your old TV and computer monitor used a CRT. Basically, they operate by having an electron gun (the cathode) emit a stream of electrons to hit a phosphorous screen (which glows when hit) and having electric deflectors directing that stream to specific points on the screen -- in a raster-scan display (eg, TVs) the deflection circuitry will cause the electron beam to scan across the screen while the intensity of the electron beam would vary thus creating an image.
Color CRTs have three electron guns for red, green, and blue. While it's a matrix of different types of phosphorus on the screen that determines the colors, we were taught (as a joke) that the electrons come in those three different colors with the red gun shooting a beam of red electrons, the green gun green electrons, and the blue gun blue electrons.
The bit bucket. Shift registers perform multiplication and division by 2 by shifting its bits left or right, respectively. As the most/least significant bit gets shifted out of the register, some registers are designed to insert it into the other end of the register ("circular shift register", also "ring counter") but most simply drop that bit.
While that "dropped bit" simply ceases to exist (since in reality a bit is abstract, being the representation of the state of a flip-flop or the logic level on a line in a data bus), this treatment treats each bit as real and concrete, so a bit could never just go away, but rather has to go somewhere. But where?
quote:In computing jargon, the bit bucket (or byte bucket) is where lost computerized data has gone, by any means; any data which does not end up where it is supposed to, being lost in transmission, a computer crash, or the like, is said to have gone to the bit bucket – that mysterious place on a computer where lost data goes ...
The bit bucket is described as residing at the bottom of a computer cabinet. A dreaded condition is the bit bucket becomes too full and you get a "bit bucket overflow", for which you urgently send a neophyte technician to get a special mop to clean up all those bits spilling out all over the floor.
In our tech school block on teletype equipment, we studied punch tape in which holes would be punched into paper tape to represent data. The bits of paper punched out of the tape is called "chad" and is collected into a plastic container which needs to be emptied periodically. Our instructor pointed to that collection container and told us, "You remember being told about the 'bit bucket'? Well, there it is!"
There are a lot more. For example when we studied vacuum tubes and how heating the cathode results in thermionic emission of electrons resulting in the establishment of a space charge in the tube's vacuum. Our instructor then suggested that the Enterprise's warp nacelles were space magnets which took advantage of space charge to propel the ship. Since that was in 1977, it was as good an explanation as any other that was available at the time (we've learned a lot more about warp drive technology since then).
There is a clear distinction between not even mentioning ether and claiming ether does not exist.
Which is precisely the same mistake ID IDiots make in their fundamental and foundational complaint over the supernatural (eg, "God") not being included in science.
For the lurkers' (AKA "visitors") sake, one of Intelligent Design's (ID) primary accusations against science has always been that it teaches that the supernatural (and hence also "God") does not exist, therefore one of ID's fundamental goals has always been to force science to include the supernatural in its work.
But those IDiots fail to understand that science instead uses methodological materalism, which is based firmly on the inability of science to make any use of the supernatural (because of our inability to observe, test, detect, or even determine the existence of the supernatural). That means that science does not use the supernatural because it cannot use it, not because of any position that the supernatural does not exist (kind of like how a new smartphone with a USB-C connector cannot use a power adapter for an iPhone or Android which uses USB-B; doesn't mean that those other power adapters do not exist -- I just had to suffer through that situation).
What I can never understand is why you creationists don't just come right out and say the obvious basis of your beliefs: "It was a miracle!" Instead, you go through such painful contortions to invent pseudo-scientific nonsense for the purpose of explaining away the miracle that you believe in. That just seems so counter-productive to your ultimate goal of "proving God." It makes no sense whatsoever (but then neither does anything else creationists come up with).
If that's not serious, what is?
One thing that we all have learned about creationism is that it is the furthest thing from something serious.
I have described it in a few earlier posts here, so I won't go through it again, ...
What? You won't even reference your own message? Well, that certainly does send a message and not a good one.
I recommend that you edit your message by appending an ABE ("Added By Edit") that contains a link to your message in question.
There are two ways to do that:
With a mid ("message ID") tag. Syntax: within square brackets type mid=message_ID_number . The message ID number is the six-digit number in parentheses after the Message 545 of 545 in the message title block; the mid of your message I'm replying to is 893965. So using this tag I would link to your message with [mid=893965] (Message 545). This works for any message in the forums regardless of topic, so I can link you to the latest message in the Humor topic, Message 1367. Use Peek Mode to verify that.
You can also see the message ID number in the URL; eg, m=893965. There is also a corresponding tid tag for linking to a topic, but to get the topic ID number you will needed to follow the topic's link from the All Topics page (or just hover the mouse over that link to see its URL) The tid of this topic is t=20201, so the link is An Ether-Based Creation Model. Again, use Peek Mode to examine the underlying markup text.
With a msg ("message ID") tag. Syntax: same as the mid and the tid tags, except the keyword is msg and the message number is the number within the Message 545 of 545; eg, the message number you're replying to is 537. To my knowledge, this only works within the current topic. Therefore the msg of your message I'm replying to is 545, so using this tag I would link to your message with [msg=545] (Message 545). Again, use Peek Mode to verify that.
Just include the message number in your text; eg, "I have described it in a few earlier posts here (xxx, yyy, zzz)"
That way you will appear to have nothing to hide instead of looking like you're trying to be devious.
™ Version 4.2
