To: Red Badger
I think it could be a little of both. Why couldn't the quantum, which is eveywhere and in everything, have enough mass, if evenly distributed, to hold things down? It would be sort of like living on a planet surrounded by undectable jello - an energy "aura".
I understand what Erik Verlinde is trying to say. From a quantum point of view, it makes sence. From a Neutonian point of view, it can't be put on film. (I can also see why these two fine fellows dissagree.)
To: concerned about politics
“The quantum”? Is there such a thing?
30 posted on
08/24/2011 3:22:51 PM PDT by
Williams
(Honey Badger Don't Care)
To: concerned about politics
That sounds awfully like ‘ether’.........
75 posted on
08/24/2011 4:02:41 PM PDT by
Red Badger
("Treason doth never prosper.... What's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.")
To: concerned about politics
“Why couldn’t the quantum, which is eveywhere and in everything, have enough mass, if evenly distributed, to hold things down? It would be sort of like living on a planet surrounded by undectable jello - an energy “aura”.”
What’s the difference between imagining that scenario and concocting a “luminiferous ether” or “dark matter” to make your theory work? Aren’t these just theoretical “fudge factors” used as a crutch to prop up an apparently flawed theory?
It seems like scientists sometimes try to reimagine reality to conform to their theory, rather than reimagine their theory to conform to reality.
To: concerned about politics; Red Badger
” undectable jello “
Had that for desert last night. My gutz have been messed up all day!
Badge,,,, this one is beyond me. I’m very interested in science, but,,,,,
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson