Spacetime as a superfluid:

Originally posted by sonhouse
But using the term 'vacuum' conjures up visions of classical physics with its continuous nature down to Planck level.

This superfluid model is talking about spacetime as quantified and therefore grainy, unlike the vacuum of classical physics.

It is silly to suggest a superfluid is not a medium. It is even more absurd to say superfluid theory is not derived from aether theory.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2612949/Are-living-underwater-Researchers-believe-universe-liquid-superfluid.html

Even the vacuum of space contains matter popping in and out of existence. This needs further study to understand how the universe works. I personally believe these virtual particles will explain the accelerating expansion of the universe to some extent.

Originally posted by humy

Is superfluid a medium or not?

yes. How does that logically imply that it is actually aether? It doesn't. You clearly imply a false inference.
Water is also a medium. So water is aether? -false inference.
space-time without aether as Einstein thought of it is also a medium. So space-time without aether is aether? -false inference AND l ...[text shortened]... X used as an analogy to Y does not imply X IS Y.
this superfluid, if it exists, is NOT aether.

It is silly to suggest a superfluid is not a medium. It is even more absurd to say superfluid theory is not derived from aether theory.

Einstein was well aware that space contains virtual particles popping in and out of existence. Every example you have given contains matter (and even aether if it exists). I'll let you read Einstein's words yourself just in case you are relying on wikipedia errors.

http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Science/einstein_aether_and_relativity.php

Originally posted by Metal Brain
It is silly to suggest a superfluid is not a medium. It is even more absurd to say superfluid theory is not derived from aether theory.

Einstein was well aware that space contains virtual particles popping in and out of existence. Every example you have given contains matter (and even aether if it exists). I'll let you read Einstein's words yourself j ...[text shortened]...
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Science/einstein_aether_and_relativity.php

Please don't insult my intelligence. I have studied relativity at university level -have you? yes or no?

You obviously don't know what superfluid really is meant to be so how could you know that it is aether like you said earlier? You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about so please stop talking to us scientists as if you do.

Originally posted by humy
Please don't insult my intelligence. I have studied relativity at university level -have you? yes or no?

You obviously don't know what superfluid really is meant to be so how could you know that it is aether like you said earlier? You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about so please stop talking to us scientists as if you do.

You don't know what you are talking about. You are the one who doesn't know what a superfluid is. If you did you would be able to have an intelligible explanation of what it is if not an aether derived explanation of why there is no resistance.
This is merely a way to say something is waving for light to propagate through JUST LIKE AETHER THEORY. Some people don't accept the uncertainty principle and think it is flawed because of the observer effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29

Whether you agree or disagree some people embrace de Broglie and wave particle duality. I happen to like de Broglie's theories and think the observer effect may have tainted the Heisenberg principle. I view superfluid as a convenient way claim it is not aether theory to avoid the stigma that goes along with it. There is little difference though. They both think something is waving in the vacuum.

My educational level should mean as little to you as yours does to me. Nobody is too good to explain themselves. If you think you are you have a lot to learn.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You don't know what you are talking about. You are the one who doesn't know what a superfluid is. If you did you would be able to have an intelligible explanation of what it is if not an aether derived explanation of why there is no resistance.
This is merely a way to say something is waving for light to propagate through JUST LIKE AETHER THEORY. Some ...[text shortened]... s to me. Nobody is too good to explain themselves. If you think you are you have a lot to learn.

You are the one who doesn't know what a superfluid is.

I don't know the physical equations for it but so don't you -neither of us really understands what it supposed to be (outside my area of expertise ) although I do know that aether is at best an analogy to it. The big difference is that I admit to others and myself that I don't know exactly what it is while you arrogant don't. If I don't know what I am talking about then you don't know that you are talking about even more so. At least I have studies relativity but, even if you have also, one thing I know about super fluid that you don't is personal ignorance of it. Merely not knowing just how ignorant you are of the subject makes you more ignorant than me on the subject.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to your claim.

Originally posted by humy

You are the one who doesn't know what a superfluid is.

I don't know the physical equations for it but so don't you -neither of us really understands what it supposed to be (outside my area of expertise ) although I do know that aether is at best an analogy to it. The big difference is that I admit to others and myself that I don't know ex ...[text shortened]... you more ignorant than me on the subject.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to your claim.

"I don't know the physical equations for it but so don't you"

I never claimed I did, but why should I? This is all unprovable theory just like string theory is. I find it a little interesting but why waste time with something that will likely never be proven even if true?
You can pretend to be superior to me all you want, but you still have explained nothing to indicate I am on the wrong track here. If you have something substantial to offer I am willing to listen, but spare me the bluffing followed by the "you don't know either" defense. It really isn't a defense at all. It smells of ignorance and I call your bluff. What do you think superfluid in this (space-time) context is?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I don't know the physical equations for it but so don't you"

I never claimed I did, but why should I? This is all unprovable theory just like string theory is. I find it a little interesting but why waste time with something that will likely never be proven even if true?
You can pretend to be superior to me all you want, but you still have explained ...[text shortened]... f ignorance and I call your bluff. What do you think superfluid in this (space-time) context is?

I never claimed I did, but why should I?

Because, without knowing and understanding the equations for it, you cannot have complete understanding on what it is.

This is all unprovable theory just like string theory is.

And, since you don't know what it is, how would you know this?
Not even I would know this -I don't know whether it would eventually lead to some kind of testable prediction.

"you don't know either" defense. It really isn't a defense at all.

It is not supposed to be a defense, it is an attack, specifically, on your arrogance. You seem to think you know all about itl and you are not even a scientist.

Originally posted by humy

I never claimed I did, but why should I?

Because, without knowing and understanding the equations for it, you cannot have complete understanding on what it is.

This is all unprovable theory just like string theory is.

And, since you don't know what it is, how would you know this?
Not even I would know this -I don' ...[text shortened]... y, on your arrogance. You seem to think you know all about itl and you are not even a scientist.

"Because, without knowing and understanding the equations for it, you cannot have complete understanding on what it is."

What equations? You have not presented any? Obviously a double standard. Pathetic!

Attack? What attack? That is laughable!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Because, without knowing and understanding the equations for it, you cannot have complete understanding on what it is."

What equations? You have not presented any? Obviously a double standard. Pathetic!

Attack? What attack? That is laughable!

What equations? You have not presented any?

I just stated that I did NOT KNOW the equations for it. So how can you think I can present them when I don't know them? 😛 -that is a really stupid expectation!
And that is a stupid comment to make for another reason ;-what? I take it you think there is no equations for super fluid? 😛 if so, that is a pretty stupid thing to think! There are equations for almost everything in physics so why not super fluid? It would be pretty astonishing if you could not define any aspect of super fluid with an equation!
OK, I have just looked up such an equation Although I haven't bothered trying to work out what it means ( rather outside my area of special interest ) , here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory
( scroll about one-third down to see it )
Well? Isn't that an equation for it?

Originally posted by humy

What equations? You have not presented any?

I just stated that I did NOT KNOW the equations for it. So how can you think I can present them when I don't know them? 😛 -that is a really stupid expectation!
And that is a stupid comment to make for another reason ;-what? I take it you think there is no equations for super fluid? 😛 if so, t ...[text shortened]... d_vacuum_theory
( scroll about one-third down to see it )
Well? Isn't that an equation for it?

"So how can you think I can present them when I don't know them? -that is a really stupid expectation!"

I never said I knew them either but a theoretical equation that cannot be proven has little value, yet you had a really stupid expectation yourself. Why would you be foolish enough to think a person can't understand something unless they know an equation? Einstein was decent at math, but he did need the help of Godel and others at times. That does not diminish the brilliance of Einstein.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"So how can you think I can present them when I don't know them? -that is a really stupid expectation!"

I never said I knew them either but a theoretical equation that cannot be proven has little value, yet you had a really stupid expectation yourself. Why would you be foolish enough to think a person can't understand something unless they know an equ ...[text shortened]... d need the help of Godel and others at times. That does not diminish the brilliance of Einstein.

Why would you be foolish enough to think a person can't understand something unless they know an equation?

No, that is not what I said at all. Where did you get that from? But if it is a physical concept in physics, in most cases it would be virtually impossible to have both complete and concise understanding of it without understanding the physical equations for it.

Einstein was decent at math, but he did need the help of Godel and others at times.

That proves my point. He needed equations to have complete understanding of the physics. For as long as you and I don't understand the equations for something in physics, neither of us can claim to have complete understanding of it. At best we can have some intuitive but either in-concise or rather incomplete understanding of it.

That does not diminish the brilliance of Einstein.

Who said it did? Not me. We all need to know the equations to have complete and proper understanding of the physics.

Originally posted by humy

Why would you be foolish enough to think a person can't understand something unless they know an equation?

No, that is not what I said at all. Where did you get that from? But if it is a physical concept in physics, in most cases it would be virtually impossible to have both complete and concise understanding of it without understanding t ...[text shortened]... me. We all need to know the equations to have complete and proper understanding of the physics.

"We all need to know the equations to have complete and proper understanding of the physics."

Can you prove that the equation for superfluid is valid? I think the equation is purely theoretical and unprovable. I can find equations for string theory too, but they mean nothing and don't give you a better understanding since they will be unproven for a very long time.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. You just think you do.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"We all need to know the equations to have complete and proper understanding of the physics."

Can you prove that the equation for superfluid is valid? I think the equation is purely theoretical and unprovable. I can find equations for string theory too, but they mean nothing and don't give you a better understanding since they will be unproven for a very long time.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. You just think you do.

Can you prove that the equation for superfluid is valid?

What do you mean by “valid”? Do you mean logically/mathematically self-consistent or do you mean they correctly describe reality? If the former, can you give a reason for be suspicious of their self-consistency? If the latter, why the need for me to prove that they are correct? Did I say they are correct? -answer, no. I do not know if they are correct. And what has them being correct got to do with understanding them and the said physics they describe? Whether they are correct or not, to have complete understanding of the said physics the describe, you still need to understand the equations for it.

I think the equation is purely theoretical and unprovable.

they are theoretical but not necessarily “purely” theoretical because they might, for all we know, have testable prediction. But how could you possibly know that they are “ unprovable” without understanding of the meaning of the equations and, in particular, the predictions it may make that differ from opposing theories? How do you know there doesn't exist any possible testable prediction for the theory when you don't have complete understanding of what the theory is and everything it implies?

I can find equations for string theory too, but they mean nothing

False; the don't mean “nothing”. They must mean something but you and I simply don't know what it is because we don't understand exactly what they mean. Please don't let yourself have the intellectual arrogance to assume something is nonsense just because you don't understand it! What about the larger equations in general relativity that deal with accelerating frames of reference which makes them extremely complex? I am sure that you ( and I -I wouldn't pretend to understand them ) have absolutely no understanding of what they mean. So would you assume that they are all “purely theoretical and unprovable” nonsense just because you don't understand them? Those equations DO make testable predictions.

and don't give you a better understanding since they will be unproven for a very long time.

And you know this...how? Are you a physicist?

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

that is what I just repeatedly said in my other posts. But you would have even less clue than me about what they are talking about because at least I have done a few proper university physics courses and learned some advanced physics. I assume you haven't even done that, right?

You just think you do.

Nope. But do you?
If so, explain the exact meaning of the equations for it in your own words please....

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"We all need to know the equations to have complete and proper understanding of the physics."

Can you prove that the equation for superfluid is valid? I think the equation is purely theoretical and unprovable. I can find equations for string theory too, but they mean nothing and don't give you a better understanding since they will be unproven for a very long time.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. You just think you do.

Many different kinds of superfluids have been observed in nature (e.g. liquid helium, in ultracold quantum gases and in superconductors), and the theoretical literature about superfluids is vast.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
It is outdated.

Superfluid is just another aether theory. Ever since the Michelson–Morley experiment most abandoned the idea, but superfluid is just a new excuse to ignore the Michelson–Morley experiment and carry on the old aether theory.

Aww…dude…

Here, you need to put on this white, cone-shaped hat and go stand in the corner.