How do you figure that? There are many types of energy that are not
associated with motion in space. For example, two electrons held one meter
apart have potential energy because of their mutual repulsive force; that's
energy with no motion.
> and in order to perceive it, we
>must have time.
>
Agreed.
>So, perhaps space is synominious with aether. In other words, it is the
>aether.
>
>One definition of space is the viewpoint of definition. If I place two
>objects a distance from each other, and I then look at them, I can see both
>objects as well as the space between them, hence, space is viewpoint of
>dimension. Without space there is no dimension and if aether is space,
>there would be not be any aether either.
>
>To claim that the aether is some sort of particle-s is not proven and is
>just an assumption. But to claim that there is no aether-space would
>nullify our very existence.
>
I find it very difficult to talk about an anything without nailing down
exactly what it is. Sometimes I think that aetherists change the word
aether to mean whatever it is that suits the moment; it seems that the only
thing that they can agree upon is that it a) has energy and b) is
everywhere. These properties do not a theory make.
It's also possible that I'm wrong, and that there is an agreed upon list of
properties for the aether. If so, my apologies.
>Sometimes it's hard to realize that all we're doing is perceiving thru our
>eyes and emotions, which results in our mental processing and concluding
>what we are perceiving.
>
>Perhaps this is just a holographic universe . . .
>
>Just some thoughts I've got and want to pass on.
And that's always welcome.
-Peter
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------