studiot

You should explore more than one avenue. By now you should have written and posted the letter ajb, and I suggested. That will set a marker you can always fall back on. If it produces two sets of transcripts because Phi's advice also works all well and good. But at least you would be able to say to the County Superintendent or whatever, the chair of the school governors did not respond to my letter of 23 December 2014 if (and I hope you don't) have to.

Well whether it is a concept or not (debatable but off the point) doesn't lead logically to what it is a concept about or prevent it including all of space. It is defined to include all of space. Since you wish to state that it is mathematical, perhaps you can display some mathematical section of space that is not included, mathematically?

Well I come back to your very words not in Minkowski space-time but in ... aether Minkowski space-time includes all of space and all of time whether it is finite or infinite. So anything in space or time is in Minkowski space-time. Yet you tell me quite clearly that there are disturbances in aether that is not in Minkowski space-time. So I ask again Are you saying there is some aether in space-time and some not, or that all aether is not in space-time, or that your original claim was incorrect? Unless you are saying the definition of Minkowski space-time is incorrect and includes things not in space or time.

I have to observe, in the absence of any reasoning, that sounds more like a religious cant than a reasoned scientific statement. First you tell me the aether is outside space Then you tell me that it occupies space So which is it?

So are you just renaming something for the fun of it or is there any real significance to your new name? Or are you suggesting the difference between London and Edinburgh is purely mathematical?

That is still no answer to my question. Are you now saying that Spacetime is part of the aether? If so what part and are you also saying there is another part of the aether where disturbances occur?

Returning to my travels. If I travel from New York to Boston am I in England? : No I am in the USA As I travel from London to Newcastle am I in England? : Yes. As I travel on to Edinburgh am I in England ? : No I am in Scotland. But all three are travels in space since all three (England, Scotland and the USA) are in space. But I can (and do) also travel in another medium that is orthogonal (you introduced mathematics) to space. To whit Time. I am moving, travelling or being displaced in time throughout, whether or not I travel in space. So I can truly offer some possible mechanisms whereby you could propose that some aether is being displaced (in space/Spacetime) whilst some is not and that is the portion that the disturbance occurs in. That would at least remove the inconsistency, but it is up to you to make it work as it is your theory.

Please don't respond with great tracts that only serve to cloud the issue. You have made two statements that are inconsistent with each other and I am trying to reconcile them. You keep referring to 'displacing' the aether. Aether (or anything else) can only be displaced if it is in someplace to start with. And when it moves to another place it is still in space. We can consider space and time as linked (as in Spacetime) or spearate, so that in my example journey I travel in both space and time. But you have said This is a clear statement that the aether the perturbations propagate in, is not contained in Spactime or indeed in space. Which contradicts your other statement that aether is displaced in spacetime. So please resolve this contradiction.

You have said a great deal and referred to a great deal more, but I'm concerned with a fundamental premise upon which your whole argument rests. If I drive from London to Edinburgh am I moving through space, time or aether or what?

So are you saying that matter has no physical extent, that there is no dimension we call length?

That didn't answer my question. You very clearly said If the perturbations do not propagate in Spacetime, but somewhere else, then it follows that that somewhere else cannot be contained in Spactime either or else the propagation would be in something that was contained in Spacetime and therefore also in Spacetime. So please answer my question as to whether you actually meant this or wish to reword ?

Yes the correct way is in writing. I'm Old Fashioned in that I believe that important matters (like this) should be on paper not by Email. It's easy to claim an Email was never received, but you can't claim you didn't reveive a letter when the other party has proof of posting/delivery. But remember what ajb said "A nice letter". I would add nice = polite and businesslike. Short, not rambling. Get someone to check the English and spelling.

So do I take it that you propose your aether to be in some sense outside Spacetime?

Well, luke you have said what your aether is not. Please explain exactly what you propose it to be. That is what properties does have, defining equations, laws, rules of the road and whatnot.

Do I see Rylands embracing Fletcher or Carlill endorsing the Carbolic Smoke Ball or Kramer kissing Kramer As this is the season of goodwill?

I'm bored out of my tiny mind with the double slit. Can't we do something else for Christmas?

Are you sure someone didn't say the factor was 80, not 8? I make it 81 using a simple straightforward ratio. Please note that T means either temperature or temperature difference, but not both. Edit I see you read the question properly whilst I was working it out and posted more in your post#3.

It's called Stephan's Law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law or since Wiki makes a meal of it http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

Good morning tar. Your question is a bit woolly, but a good one. No there is no general size limit. But thast does not mean we do not have to take it into account. As Ophiolite says it depends in part on the equation But also in part on the size and nature of the system. We often have to consider the spread of the activity through the system. Many good practical examples come from earth sciences since the Earth is very large relative to individual particles. Earthquakes start locally and eventually affect all parts. Oceanographers have a term called ocean mixing or flushing times. It is possible for one one of a bar of rock to be molten,but the other end to be liquid, at the same time because of heat transference rates. Children know this phenomenon in relation to ice lollys. I was once involved in modelling what happens to pressure in gas pipeline networks thousands of miles remote from a breach. In all cases the equations themselves do not depend upon scale, but some parts of the network remain unaffected for considerable periods. There is even a branch of mathematics dealing with size independence, to whit fractals.

Did you not find the hyperphysics explanation I linked to in post#8 helpful in illuminating this?

Thank you for trying to intercede, helpfully. But, as has already been pointed out, the specified existence of boundary conditions requires boundaries.

The airfoil, as with any material object, starts to fall the instant the force keeping it up there is removed. There is no honeymoon period before Newton and gravity kick in. Rockets work on an entirely different principle, which is how and why they will work in space, where airfoils will not. Probably, but not necessarily. I can think of several situations where this does not happen. For some objects yes certainly, but not for all such objects. In particular balloons do not meet this requirement. It also depends what you mean by 'weight'. Yes but again it also depends what you mean by 'weight'. That is a meaningless question since you haven't stated what 'pressures' you are talking about. Since you invoke Bernoulli and pressure, we could argue all night where you say the 'pressure' decreases and I say it increases simply because we are talking about different Bernoulli pressures. If you truly understand bernoulli, you will understand what I am referring to. The problem has never lacked clarity for me, but I think you are beginning to confuse yourself again, through lack of detailed knowledge I exhort you to aquire. I have already indicated that I am not prepared to suspend the laws of Physics for anyones' convenience. I is a shame if you choose not to aquire the knowledge necessary to provide satisfactory answers to your questions, but you must follow the laws of Physics, like everyone else.

Voodoo This is a thought experiment, remember. Or formally she sees all distances measured in the direction of relative motion as contracted by the Lorenz contraction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

If speeds are sufficinet then you need to make allowance for length contraction. The space ship is travelling at approx 0.9c directly towards the distant star. So the relative velocity is 0.9c So distance in that direction is subject to the Lorenz contraction, as measured by the traveller. An observer sitting warming his bum on the star can be considered 'at rest' as he watches the traveller approach so he will measure time dilation. The is then the same situation as the extended life of the muon as it approaches Earth. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html

Ego has nothing to do with it. Gauss' Law does no such thing, for every conceivable volume. Nor is this about feeling. It is strictly about science. I have never seen a geometric sphere with corners. Can you show me one? Anyone looking at my drawing will see a dashed square, clearly labelled 'section'. This section can only be part of a 3 dimensional volume. Equally the only place where a field is shown in my sketch is within that volume. You claimed, and I asked you to demonstrate, that you can deduce the charges that produce that specified field, from the field alone. If you were unclear about anything in the sketch the proper course of action was to ask for an explanation - I would have been happy to oblige.